CA  ..  i- 

f  1 


/ 

/• 


■i 


r 


]«■ 


i.  -  » 


f  .vf  < 


•  p* 


v> 


V,-. 


■«' ' 


.  .‘  V/r’ 


■’  '  ■;'«i!'i 


r^- 


M~  -  i  ..: 


;v  ,  ;.  >". 
7^-  ' 


<  : 


V> 


>  t  <1 

1 1  • 

,J 


'• 

.  <r’’  , 


'>■  ’  , 

M;  ' 


ii: 


,;'v 


'■■''' 

’'^,1 

(  ■  '  \v'j 

111  ,  ^^.  s',  'V 

i'l'i  ■„  I 

'  %  I'  ' ,  ‘  s 


.  .n 

;  V  V, 

< ..  it.- 


oJh^I 


'•.U  I 


.if 'vi®raspi>’’‘';  ■  ■ " 


.'k' 


-  '  '-sS 


1  '  : 


■  , 


r:if 


'f. 


I 


•\V 

'V’V' 


AN  INTRODUCTION  TO 
THE  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 


JOHN  ROBERT  VAN  PELT,  Ph.  D. 


AN  INTRODUCTION 
TO  THE  STUDY  OF 
THE  BIBLE 


BY 

JOHN  ROBERT 'van  PELT,  PH.  D. 

Professor  in  Gammon  Theological  Seminary 


NEW 


YORK 


GEORGE  H.  DORAN  COMPANY 


Copyright,  ig2j. 

By  George  H.  Doran  Company 


An  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Bible,  111^ 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


TO 


WILLIAM  FAIRFIELD  WARREN 

IN  IMPERISHABLE  AFFECTION 
AND  GRATITUDE 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


cy  - 


https://archive.org/details/introductiontostOOvanp 


CONTENTS 


PART  I:  A  GENERAL  SURVEY 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I  WHAT  IS  THE  BIBLE? . 11 

II  OUTWARD  ASPECTS  OF  THE  BIBLE . 19 

III  NAMING  THE  SCRIPTURES . 33 

IV  THE  DIVERSITY  AND  UNITY  OF  THE  BIBLE  .  .  38 

V  THE  BIBLE  AND  OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS.  ...  45 

VI  THE  SCIENTIFIC  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE  ....  63 

PART  II:  THE  BIBLE  IN  THE  MAKING 

VII  THE  BIBLE  A  GROWTH . 75 

VIII  THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE . 78 

IX  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA¬ 
MENT;  EARLIER  PERIOD . 109 

X  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA¬ 
MENT:  LATER  PERIOD . 150 

APPENDED:  A  CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE  OF  THE 
LITERATURE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  ....  169 

XI  THE  COLLECTION  AND  CANONIZATION  OF  THE 

BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT . 174 

XII  BETWEEN  THE  TESTAMENTS . 178 

XIII  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TES¬ 

TAMENT  . 181 

APPENDED:  A  CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE  OF  THE 
LITERATURE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ....  200 

XIV  THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT . 204 

•  • 

vu 


CONTENTS 


PART  III:  HOW  WE  GOT  OUR  BIBLE 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XV  THE  TRANSMISSION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

TEXT .  215 

XVI  THE  TRANSMISSION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

TEXT . 223 

XVII  THE  BIBLE  VERSIONS:  BEFORE  WICKLIF  .  .  .  232 
XVIII  BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  .  .  .  243 

PART  IV:  THE  BIBLE  IN  THE  CHURCH 

XIX  THE  HISTORIC  PLACE  OF  THE  BIBLE  IN  THE 

CHURCH . 293 

XX  THE  BIBLE  AND  REVELATION . 305 

XXI  THE  BIBLE  AND  INSPIRATION . 310 

XXII  WRITTEN  WORD  AND  LIVING  VOICE . 316 

PART  V:  THE  BIBLE  IN  THE  WORLD 

XXIII  THE  BIBLE  THE  BOOK  OF  MANKIND . 323 

XXIV  THE  BIBLE  AND  CIVILIZATION . 331 

XXV  THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  WORLD’s  LITERATURE.  .  346 

PART  VI:  HOW  TO  READ  THE  BIBLE 

XXVI  THE  APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE . 355 

XXVII  PRACTICAL  SUGGESTIONS  ON  HOW  TO  READ  THE 

BIBLE . 370 

APPENDIX:  BIBLIOGRAPHY  AND  SUGGESTIONS  FOR 
FURTHER  STUDY . 389 


FART  I: 


A  GENERAL  SURVEY 


An  Introduction  to  the 
Study  of  the  Bible 

PART  I:  A  general  SURVEY 

Chapter  I 

WHAT  IS  THE  BIBLE? 

Whatever  else  it  may  be,  the  collection  of  writings 
called  the  Bible  is  without  question  the  most  influential 
book  in  the  history  of  the  human  race.  Regarded  simply 
as  a  book  and  quite  apart  from  every  question  of  the 
intrinsic  value  of  its  contents,  its  successes  are  incom¬ 
parable. 

No  other  ancient  book  was  so  often  copied,  no  modern 
book  has  been  half  so  often  printed  as  the  Bible.  Its 
countless  printed  editions  exhibit  the  utmost  range  of 
the  bookmaker’s  art,  from  the  most  inexpensive  to  the 
most  sumptuous  style.  The  first  complete  book  to  be 
printed  in  Europe  was  a  Latin  Bible;  the  earliest  decades 
of  the  new  art  of  printing  saw  more  copies  of  the  Bible 
issued  than  of  all  other  books  put  together;  and  in  the 
centuries  that  have  followed  no  literary  sensation  has 
ever,  even  for  its  brief  day,  rivaled  the  Bible  in  popular 
demand. 

No  other  book  has  been  translated  into  half  so  many 
languages  as  the  Bible.  Even  from  ancient  times  it  has 
been  so.  But  the  Bible  has  not  merely  been  translated 

11 


12  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


into  these  many  tongues,  it  has  infused  itself,  as  no  other 
book,  into  the  very  life  of  the  nations.  In  many  nations 
it  has  become  the  one  preeminent  book  of  the  people. 
Though  sprung  from  one  of  the  very  least  of  the  peoples 
and  lands  of  the  older  world,  it  is  to-day  the  book  above 
all  other  books  for  the  leading  nations  of  the  world;  and 
more  and  more  it  seems  to  be  winning  its  way  to  a  like 
position  with  the  remotest  and  most  diverse  races  of  man¬ 
kind.  It  knows  no  barrier  in  racial  idiosyncrasy;  more¬ 
over,  in  every  nation  it  appeals  with  power  to  all  sorts 
and  conditions  of  men.  Thus  it  is  the  book  of  mankind. 

More  than  any  other  book,  the  Bible  has  furnished 
theme  and  inspiration  for  poet,  painter  and  musical  com¬ 
poser.  It  has  lent  a  peculiar  charm  to  the  land  from 
which  it  sprung;  names,  places  and  incidents  connected 
with  Bible  history  are  lifted  by  this  association  into  a 
sphere  of  imperishable  interest.  No  other  book  has  been 
the  object  of  so  much  study  and  research  and  none  has 
provoked  so  much  controversy.  Countless  multitudes 
have  sought  in  all  sincerity  to  be  guided  by  its  teachings, 
and  yet  no  other  book  has  so  often  been  perverted  or  so 
needlessly  misunderstood.  The  Bible  is  an  ancient  book, 
yet  it,  above  all  other  relics  of  ancient  literature,  retains 
the  undiminished  freshness  of  perpetual  youth. 

Such  is  the  book  which  lies  invitingly  before  us.  As 
we  enter  upon  a  systematic  study  of  it,  the  question  at 
once  presents  itself:  What  is  this  book  called  the  Bible? 
This  is,  however,  not  merely  our  first  question,  but  also 
our  last.  It  is  the  one  main  question  that  must  accom¬ 
pany  us  throughout  all  our  researches.  Evidently  the 
full  answer  to  the  question  is  not  to  be  thought  of  at  the 
very  threshold  of  our  study;  that  can  come  only  as  the 
crowning  result  of  all  our  explorations  in  the  Bible’s 


WHAT  IS  THE  BIBLE? 


18 


broad  fields  and  deep  mines.  And  indeed,  since  the  Bible 
is  a  realm  of  inexhaustible  richness  and  variety,  a  com¬ 
plete  answer  no  man  will  ever  be  able  to  give.  To  the 
very  last  all  our  observations  and  discoveries  in  the  way 
of  Bible  study  will  be  but  contributions  toward  a  fuller 
and  clearer  answer  to  the  question.  What  is  the  Bible? 
What  is  here  required  is  simply  the  normal  first  step  in 
scientific  inquiry.  At  the  beginning  of  any  systematic 
study  it  is  essential  that  we  fix  the  place  of  the  object  of 
our  research;  that  is  to  say,  we  need  to  mark  its  bounds 
and  note  its  broad  general  relations.  In  its  first  general 
intention,  then,  our  question  has  not  to  do  with  what  the 
Bible  may  be  in  the  last  analysis  but  with  what  it  shows 
itself  to  be  in  a  first  broad  survey.  We  do  not  first  in¬ 
quire  what  the  Bible  is  for  the  Christian  believer,  but 
what  it  is  for  all  observers.  *‘First  that  which  is  natural, 
and  afterward  that  which  is  spiritual.” 

1.  The  simplest  and  broadest  inquiry  as  to  the  place 
of  the  Bible  in  the  world’s  literature  yields  at  once  this 
answer:  The  Bible  is  the  sacred  book  of  the  Christian 
religion.  There  are  in  the  world  other  religions  besides 
Christianity,  and  some  of  these  have  their  sacred  books. 
In  the  book  before  us  we  have  the  acknowledged  sacred 
writings  of  one  particular  religion.  Indeed,  the  Bible  is 
the  sole  collection  of  writings  universally  acknowledged 
by  the  Christian  Church  as  sacred  and  authoritative. 
While  two  great  branches  of  the  Christian  Church — the 
Roman  and  the  Greek  Catholics — include  in  their  Bibles 
certain  writings  (known  as  Apocrypha)  not  acknowl¬ 
edged  by  Protestants,  they  exclude  nothing  from  the  Bible 
as  accepted  by  Protestants.  We  must  not  omit  to  notice 
further,  that  the  portion  of  the  Bible  known  as  the  Old 
Testament  was  “Holy  Scripture”  for  the  ancient  Jews 


14  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


and  is  still  so  regarded  by  their  descendants,  while  they 
generally  reject  the  New  Testament.  These  are  the  most 
obvious  general  historical  facts  pertaining  to  the  Bible; 
as  such  they  are  universally  accessible ;  moreover,  one  may 
know  them  without  having  the  least  acquaintance  with 
the  inner  structure  and  contents  of  the  book. 

2.  We  may  now  proceed — just  as  though  it  were  a 
book  hitherto  quite  unknown  to  us — to  open  the  Bible 
in  order  to  orient  ourselves  in  it.  We  then  immediately 
observe  that  the  Bible  is  not  one  book  but  a  library.  We 
may  surmise  that  some  unifying  principle  runs  through 
the  books  composing  the  Bible;  at  all  events  it  is  an  his¬ 
torical  fact  that  the  Church  has  ever  held  that  the  books 
taken  together  do  present  a  certain  higher  unity.  But 
after  all  they  are,  strictly  speaking,  not  one  book  but 
many.  They  spring  manifestly  from  many  different 
authors  and  from  widely  separated  times.  Furthermore, 
as  even  a  very  cursory  examination  will  show,  this  col¬ 
lection  of  writings  presents  to  us  a  great  variety  of  literary 
forms :  poetry  of  many  sorts,  stories,  histories,  proverbs, 
prophecies,  biographical  sketches,  letters,  and  still  other 
kinds.  These  and  other  obvious  facts  imply  an  historical 
process  in  the  production  of  the  books  and  in  their 
collection  and  use.  All  these  suggest  a  multitude  of  inter¬ 
esting  questions,  concerning  which  there  will  be  some¬ 
thing  to  say  in  due  time.  Just  now,  however,  one  thing 
before  ever)i:hing  else  in  the  matter  of  the  structure  of 
the  Bible  commands  our  notice.  It  is  the  fact  that  the 
Bible  shows  two  grand  divisions  known  as  the  Old  and 
the  New  Testament.  So  striking  a  fact  cannot  be  with¬ 
out  special  significance.  A  little  examination  will  show 
us  that  the  Old  Testament  represents  the  religion  of  the 
ancient  Hebrews  on  the  background  of  their  history,  while 


WHAT  IS  THE  BIBLE? 


16 


the  New  Testament  represents  the  early  phases  of  the  faith 
in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  hope  of  a  Messiah. 

3.  That  the  Bible  is  made  up  of  two  parts,  the  “Old’^ 
and  the  *‘New,*^  is  presumably  a  fact  of  real  significance 
and  it  demands  some  explanation.  The  question  inevi¬ 
tably  occurs  to  every  real  student  of  the  Bible:  Why  is 
the  New  Testament  perpetually  linked  with  the  Old?  Is 
not  the  New  Testament  quite  sufficient  in  itself?  To 
this  question  history  itself  gives  the  answer:  The  whole 
Bible  is  the  source-book  of  the  Christian  religion.  At  first 
glance  it  may  seem  as  if  only  the  New  Testament  could 
be  regarded  as  the  source-book  of  the  Christian  religion; 
yet  the  statement  holds  also,  though  less  directly  and  less 
completely,  in  relation  to  the  Old.  It  was  the  persuasion 
that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  risen  from  the  dead,  that 
engendered  the  historical  movement  called  Christianity. 
The  Bible  as  a  whole  is  the  literary  monument  of  the  be¬ 
ginnings  of  that  movement.  The  New  Testament  is  the 
direct  outgrowth  of  the  movement  in  its  first  stages, 
while  the  Old  Testament  shows  us  its  special  historical 
preparation.  Some  further  observations  may  serve  to 
make  clear  the  truth  of  this  statement. 

The  New  Testament  writings  are  the  literary  docu¬ 
ments  of  the  faith  and  life  of  the  primitive  Christian 
community.  They  are  the  immediate  literary  outgrowth 
and  expression  of  the  thought  and  activity  of  the  first 
propagators  of  the  Christian  religion.  As  such  they  con¬ 
stitute  a  sort  of  autobiography  of  Christianity  in  its  be¬ 
ginnings  and  earliest  development  and  expansion.  The 
New  Testament  Epistles,  it  will  be  observed,  are  docu¬ 
ments  of  the  apostolic  missionary  labors  and  pastoral 
care,  while  the  Gospels  show  us  how  the  life  of  Jesus 


1§  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


was  recounted  and  interpreted  in  the  first  age  of  the 
Church. 

But  also  the  Old  Testament  is  a  document  bearing  upon 
the  founding  of  Christianity.  If  we  view  it  apart  from 
every  direct  relation  to  the  new  movement  that  sprang 
from  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  Old  Testament  appears  sim¬ 
ply  as  the  literary  document  of  the  life,  especially  the 
religious  life,  of  ancient  Israel.  As  it  was  complete  long 
before  the  Christian  era,  the  Old  Testament  cannot  be  a 
direct  document  of  the  beginnings  of  Christianity.  Yet 
in  another  way  it  is  a  very  real  and  even  indispensable 
document  of  Christian  origins. 

The  Old  Testament  was  in  the  first  instance  the  Bible 
of  Judaism.  It  was  also  the  Bible  of  Jesus.  It  furnished 
the  soil  and  atmosphere  of  his  personal  development  and 
formed  a  very  large  part  of  the  background  of  his  work. 
He  himself  recognized  in  it  the  eternal  truth  of  God  and 
upon  it  he  firmly  stood.  At  the  same  time  he  found 
imperfection  and  incompleteness  in  it.  His  attitude  to¬ 
ward  it  is  significantly  expressed  in  his  declarations  that 
he  came  ‘‘not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfill” — to  fill  up  what 
was  lacking  in  the  law  and  the  prophets  and  to  bring  the 
divine  intention  that  was  in  them  to  full  expression  and 
realization.  Except  upon  the  background  of  the  Old 
Testament,  Jesus  would  be  an  inexplicable  if  not  an  incon¬ 
ceivable  phenomenon.  Furthermore,  the  Old  Testament 
was  also  the  Bible  of  Jesus^  apostles  and  of  the  churches 
which  they  founded.  Jesus  had  recognized  an  indissoluble 
relation  between  his  work  and  the  Old  Testament,  and 
his  disciples  instincti’Viely  did  the  same.  And  the  Church 
has  never  departed  from  this  view.  However  imperfect 
the  Old  Testament  may  be  in  comparison  with  the  New, 


WHAT  IS  THE  BIBLE? 


17 


Christianity  is  not  to  be  understood  except  in  relation 
to  it. 

Our  observations  have  already  made  it  plain  that  the 
center  of  interest  in  the  Bible  is  the  figure  of  Jesus.  He 
is  manifestly  the  theme,  directly  or  indirectly,  of  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament.  And  as  for  the  Old 
Testament,  it  is  the  spontaneous  recognition  of  the  essen¬ 
tial  relation  of  Jesus  to  it  that  has  linked  it  inseparably 
with  the  word  of  the  New  Testament.  But  it  is  clear  that, 
in  the  union  of  the  two,  it  is  the  New  Testament  that 
dominates.  The  Old  Testament  is  read  and  used  in  the 
Christian  Church  in  subordination  to  the  New.  The  rea¬ 
son  for  this  subordination  is  for  Christianity  nothing 
arbitrary,  it  lies  in  the  manifest  historical  relation  of  the 
“New”  to  the  “Old.” 

These  facts,  which  seem  to  be  clearly  established  by 
history,  show  why  and  how  the  whole  Bible,  the  Old 
Testament  linked  with  the  New,  is  to  be  regarded  as  a 
document  of  Christian  origins,  the  perpetual  monument 
of  the  primitive  faith  of  Christianity. 

The  three  primary  observations  which  we  have  made 
may  serve  for  a  first  orientation  in  our  study  of  the  Bible. 
We  have  noted  that  the  Bible  is  the  acknowledged  sacred 
book  of  the  Christian  religion ;  that  it  is  not  really  a  single 
book  but  a  library,  and  as  such  appears  to  be  the  out¬ 
growth  of  a  long  religious  history;  and  that  it  is  the 
source-book  of  the  Christian  religion.  The  facts  which 
we  have  observed  are  for  the  most  part  too  obvious  to  be 
questioned.  Nevertheless,  their  significance  for  the  under¬ 
standing  of  the  Bible  is  not  always  duly  regarded.  It  is 
absolutely  essential  that  the  student  of  the  Bible  should 
learn  to  view  it  historically  as  well  as  in  its  present-day 
religious  significance.  Indeed,  wherever  the  Bible  is  read 


18  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

with  disregard  of  its  fundamental  historical  relations,  it 
is  sure  to  be  more  or  less  seriously  misread.  From  the 
point  which  we  have  now  reached  we  may  proceed  first 
to  a  more  particular  description  of  the  Bible,  then  to  an 
account  of  its  growth  and  its  historical  relations,  and 
finally  to  inquire  into  its  practical  value  and  use. 


Chapter  II 


OUTWARD  ASPECTS  OF  THE  BIBLE 
1.  Compass,  Divisions,  and  Arrangement. 

The  Bible,  in  its  compass  as  accepted  by  Protestants, 
contains  66  books.  These  fall  into  two  grand  divisions, 
the  Old  and  the  New  Testament.  The  former  is  com¬ 
posed  of  39  books,  the  latter  of  27.  An  ancient  Greek 
version  of  the  Old  Testament,  called  the  Septuagint,  in¬ 
cluded  a  number  of  books — commonly  called  Apocrypha — 
not  accepted  by  the  Palestinian  Jews  and  not  included  in 
their  Hebrew  Bible.  The  Old  Testament  of  the  Roman 
and  Greek  Churches  corresponds  in  the  main  to  the  com¬ 
pass  of  the  Septuagint,  while  the  Protestant  Churches 
have  adhered  to  the  Palestinian  tradition,  excluding  the 
Apocrypha.  The  compass  of  the  New  Testament  is  the 
same  for  all  branches  of  the  Christian  Church. 

The  39  books  of  the  Old  Testament  as  we  know  it  in 
our  Bible  appear  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  as  24.  This  reck¬ 
oning  the  ancient  scribes  effected  by  means  of  certain  com¬ 
binations  in  order  to  make  the  number  of  books  coincide 
with  the  number  of  letters  in  the  Hebrew  alphabet.  Nat¬ 
urally,  1  and  2  Samuel,  1  and  2  Kings,  and  1  and  2 
Chronicles  there  appear  respectively  as  undivided  books, 
for  such  they  were  originally,  while  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
are  regarded  as  one  book,  and  the  12  Minor  Prophets  as 
one,  called  “The  Book  of  the  Twelve.” 

At  present  it  is  usual  to  classify  the  39  books  of  our 

19 


20  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Old  Testament  in  four  main  groups:  (1)  The  Law 
(Pentateuch),  5  books;  (2)  Historical  Books,  12,  namely, 
Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  1  and  2  Samuel,  1  and  2  Kings, 
1  and  2  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther;  (3)  Poeti¬ 
cal  Books,  5,  namely.  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
Song  of  Solomon;  (4)  Prophetical  Books,  17,  namely, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Lamentations,  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  Hosea, 
Joel,  Amos,  Obadiah,  Jonah,  Micah,  Nahum,  Habakkuk, 
Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  Malachi.  The  last  group 
is  subdivided  into  the  Major  and  the  Minor  Prophets,  the 
former  comprising  the  first  five  books  in  this  list  and 
the  latter  the  remaining  twelve.  This  classification  corre¬ 
sponds  to  the  order  of  the  books  in  the  Christian  Bible, 
and  the  arrangement  is  obviously  based  upon  a  certain 
logical  principle.  The  Jews,  however,  have  from  the  be¬ 
ginning  had  a  different  arrangement  and  a  different  classi¬ 
fication  of  the  books,  which  likewise  are  controlled  by  a 
certain,  though  different,  idea.  They  have  recognized 
three  groups  of  sacred  writings  corresponding  at  once  to 
a  threefold  distinction  as  to  the  general  nature  of  the 
several  groups  and  to  the  three  stages  in  which  they 
obtained  recognition  as  sacred  scripture.  These  three 
groups  are  as  follows:  (1)  the  Torah  (Law);  (2)  the 
Nebiim  (Prophets);  (3)  the  Kethubim  (Writings). 
Now,  it  is  a  very  interesting  and  significant  fact,  as  we 
shall  see  more  particularly  hereafter,  that  the  Law  was 
recognized  as  sacred  and  authoritative  a  considerable  time 
before  the  Prophets,  and  the  Prophets  some  time  before 
the  Writings.  The  Torah  includes  the  five  books  com¬ 
monly  ascribed  to  Moses  (called  in  Greek  usage  Penta- 
teuchos,  that  is,  “The  Fivefold  Book”).  The  Nebiim 
the  Jews  divided  into  the  “Former”  and  the  “Latter” 
Prophets.  The  Former  Prophets  are  the  books  of  Joshua, 


OUTWARD  ASPECTS  OF  THE  BIBLE 


21 


Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings.  These  books,  which  we 
classify  as  “historical,”  the  ancient  Jews  called  “Proph¬ 
ets,”  because  it  was  supposed  they  had  been  written  by 
certain  of  the  prophets.  The  Latter  Prophets  are  the 
prophets  in  the  stricter  sense  of  the  term;  in  this  group 
the  Jews  reckoned  four  books :  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, 
and  the  Book  of  the  Twelve,  i.e.,  the  twelve  “Minor” 
Prophets  (it  will  be  observed  that  Lamentations  and 
Daniel  fall  into  the  next  group).  The  Kethubim  (or 
Writings — a  rather  vague  term  suggesting  the  miscella¬ 
neous  character  of  the  group)  include:  (a)  The  Poetical 
Books,  namely.  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job;  (b)  the  five 
Megilloth  or  Rolls,  namely,  Song  of  Solomon,  Ruth, 
Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  Esther;  (c)  the  Remaining 
Books,  namely,  Daniel,  Ezra-Nehemiah,  Chronicles. 

Interesting  attempts  have  been  made  to  assign  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  to  appropriate  literary  categories. 
A  literary  species  is  distinguished  by  two  marks :  the 
nature  of  its  contents  and  especially  the  form  and  method 
of  treatment.  From  this  point  of  view  the  following 
classification  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  will  be 
found  useful,  though  it  must  be  understood  that  the 
diversified  character  of  several  of  the  books  makes  a 
strict  classification  impossible.  ( 1 )  The  Pentateuch  taken 
as  a  whole  is  a  combination  of  the  legal  and  the  narrative 
species  of  literature.  Genesis  is  almost  purely  narrative 
and  it  embodies  the  traditions  of  the  Hebrews  concerning 
the  origin  of  the  world,  of  the  human  race  and  its  divi¬ 
sions  of  the  same,  and  especially  of  Israel.  Leviticus  is 
almost  wholly  a  book  of  Laws,  Numbers  a  book  of  narra¬ 
tion,  while  Exodus  and  Deuteronomy  are  partly  legal 
writing  and  partly  narration.  (2)  The  books  from  Joshua 
to  Nehemiah  inclusive  may,  with  one  or  two  exceptions, 


22  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


be  fairly  classified  as  belonging  to  the  category  of  his¬ 
torical  writings.  The  book  of  Ruth  is  probably  to  be 
excepted,  perhaps  also  Chronicles,  for  reasons  that  will 
appear  hereafter.  (3)  Poetical  books:  (a)  lyrical — 
Psalms,  Lamentations,  Song  of  Solomon;  (b)  dramatic 
(in  a  qualified  sense) — Job.  (4)  Prophetical  books: 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel  and  the  12  Minor  Prophets 
with  the  exception  of  Jonah.  (5)  Apocalyptic  books: 
Daniel  (also  portions  of  Ezekiel  and  Zechariah).  (6) 
Midrashic  books :  i.e.,  books  in  which  narrative  (not 
necessarily  based  upon  historical  facts)  is  used  primarily 
as  a  vehicle  of  moral  or  religious  lessons;  Ruth,  Jonah, 
Esther,  perhaps  also  Chronicles.  (7)  Wisdom  books: 
Proverbs  (gnomic),  Ecclesiastes  (speculative). 

The  27  New  Testament  books  fall  easily  into  a  four¬ 
fold  division:  (1)  Gospels,  4;  (2)  Apostolic  history 
(“Acts  of  the  Apostles”),  1;  (3)  Epistles,  21,  of  which 
14  are  traditionally  called  “Pauline”  and  7  “General”; 
(4)  Apocalyptic,  1  (the  “Apocalypse”  or  “Revelation”). 
For  convenience^  sake  a  twofold  division  has  had  a  cer¬ 
tain  recognition  in  ecclesiastical  prayer-books  and  lec- 
tionaries :  “Gospel”  and  “Epistle” — everything  but  the 
four  Gospels  falling  under  the  second  head. 

Thus  far  we  have  confined  our  attention  to  the  list  of 
books  which  Protestants  recognize  as  “canonical”  (canon 
is  a  Greek  word  meaning  “rule”  or  “pattern,”  and  hence, 
in  a  technical  sense,  “a  list  of  standard  or  authoritative 
writings”).  But  also  those  other  books  called  Apocrypha 
require  some  notice.  The  term  Apocrypha  means  “hid¬ 
den,”  and  is  applied  to  writings  which,  being  “of  doubt¬ 
ful  origin,”  were  supposed  to  be  unworthy  of  admission 
to  the  canon.  The  Old  Testament  Apocrypha  comprise 
the  chief  remains  of  literature  from  Jewish  sources  not  in 


OUTWARD  ASPECTS  OF  THE  BIBLE  23 

the  old  Hebrew  canon,  in  so  far  as  the  writings  were 
analogous  in  purpose  and  style  to  the  undisputed  books. 
Concerning  them  the  Church  of  England  in  the  sixth 
Article  of  Religion  made  this  pronouncement:  “And  the 
other  books  (as  Jerome  saith)  the  church  doth  read  for 
example  of  life  and  instruction  of  manners :  but  yet  doth 
it  not  apply  to  them  to  establish  any  doctrine.’^  The 
Article  then  proceeds  to  give  a  list  of  the  books : 

The  Third  (now  called  the  First)  Book  of 
Esdras. 

The  Fourth  (now  called  the  Second)  Book  of 
Esdras. 

The  Book  of  Tobias. 

The  Book  of  Judith. 

The  Rest  of  the  Book  of  Esther. 

The  Book  of  Wisdom. 

Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach. 

Baruch  the  Prophet. 

The  Song  of  the  Three  Children. 

The  Story  of  Susanna. 

Of  Bel  and  the  Dragon. 

The  First  Book  of  the  Maccabees. 

The  Second  Book  of  the  Maccabees. 

With  the  exception  of  2  Esdras  all  these  are  preserved 
to  us  in  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament  called 
the  Septuagint.  Several  of  them  were  originally  written 
in  Hebrew,  but  the  majority  seem  to  have  been  written 
in  Greek.  In  Alexandria  they  were  highly  esteemed,  but 
the  Palestinian  rabbis  rejected  them.  Most  of  them  are 
included  in  Luther’s  Bible  as  “books  which,  though  not 
esteemed  equal  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  are  yet  useful  and 
good  to  read.”  The  Calvinistic  churches  in  the  age  of 
the  Reformation  specifically  rejected  them.  The  Roman 


24  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Church,  however,  by  the  Council  of  Trent  in  1546  de¬ 
clared  the  equal  inspiration  of  all  books  contained  in  the 
Vulgate  version  of  the  Bible,  in  which  the  list  of  Old 
Testament  books  is  almost  the  same  as  that  of  the  Septu- 
agint.  To  the  traditional  list  of  Apocrypha  as  given 
above  might  be  added  a  considerable  number  of  other 
writings  belonging  to  the  same  period,  which  for  con¬ 
venience’  sake  may  be  called  “additional  Apocrypha.” 
These,  however,  are  writings  that  never  were  canonical. 
In  respect  of  literary  form  the  apocryphal  writings  fall 
into  the  following  classes :  historical  pieces,  romances, 
additions  to  canonical  books,  and  apocalyptic  literature. 
All  these  writings  throw  much  light  upon  the  religious 
history  of  the  Jews,  both  in  Palestine  and  in  the  Dis¬ 
persion,  in  the  period  between  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New. 

There  are  also  the  New  Testament  Apocrypha.  For  a 
time,  especially  in  the  second  century,  a  few  of  these 
were  so  highly  esteemed  as  to  be  read  in  the  churches 
along  with  the  canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
As  these  particular  writings  only  narrowly  missed  being 
accepted  as  canonical,  they  may  be  called  “secondary 
books”  of  primitive  Christianity.  We  possess  four  writ¬ 
ings  of  this  class :  the  Epistle  of  Clement,  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas,  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  and  the  Teaching  of 
the  Twelve  Apostles.  But  there  grew  up  also  a  large 
body  of  apocryphal  writings  that  never  found  any  con¬ 
siderable  acceptance  in  representative  churches.  These 
represented  for  the  most  part  heretical  tendencies  and 
special  types  of  unorthodox  teaching.  They  fall  into  four 
classes  after  the  manner  of  the  canonical  books  of  the  New 
Testament:  “Gospels,”  “Acts  of  Apostles,”  “Epistles,” 
“Apocalypses.”  They  are  all  of  much  interest  to  scholars. 


OUTWARD  ASPECTS  OF  THE  BIBLE 


25 


as  shedding  light  upon  the  problems  of  early  Christian 
history.  In  intrinsic  value,  however,  they  are  strikingly 
inferior  to  the  canonical  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament. 

All  modern  Bibles  exhibit  a  peculiar  feature  which  was 
entirely  wanting  in  the  original  manuscripts,  namely,  the 
division  of  books  into  chapters  and  of  chapters  into  verses. 
Slight  movements  in  this  direction,  however,  began  very 
early.  Jewish  rabbis  even  before  the  time  of  Christ 
marked  out  portions  of  the  Scriptures,  especially  of  the 
Pentateuch,  for  public  reading  in  the  synagogues.  In 
the  Christian  church  as  early  as  the  fourth  century  some¬ 
thing  of  the  same  sort  was  done  for  portions  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  completion  of  the  movement  to  divide 
the  whole  Bible  into  chapters  is  ascribed  to  Stephen  Lang- 
ton,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (died  1227).  It  is  uni¬ 
versally  recognized  as  a  work  in  many  instances  ill  done. 
The  very  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  for  example,  would 
properly  end  with  the  third  verse  of  the  second  chapter. 
The  division  of  the  New  Testament  text  into  verses  was 
the  work — based  on  earlier  models — of  Robert  Stephens 
in  his  Greek  Testament  of  1551.  The  work  was  done 
hurriedly  on  a  journey  between  Paris  and  Lyons — ''inter 
equitandum/'  as  he  said;  which  probably  means  “while 
resting  at  inns  in  the  intervals  of  his  journey.”  Someone, 
however,  suggested  that  it  might  mean  that  Stephens  did 
the  work  on  horseback,  pencil  in  hand,  and  whenever  he 
received  a  decided  jolt  he  involuntarily  made  a  mark  with 
his  pencil — and  the  mark  fixed  the  end  of  a  verse !  At  all 
events  the  division  of  the  text  into  verses,  however  con¬ 
venient  it  may  be  for  reference,  was  in  every  other  regard 
anything  but  a  happy  stroke.  The  modern  revisers  of  the 
English  Bible  have  given  us  relief  by  printing  the  trans- 


26  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

lation  in  paragraph  form,  setting  the  numbers  of  the 
verses  in  the  margin. 

2.  Languages, 

By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  Old  Testament  is  writ¬ 
ten  in  Hebrew;  the  portions  not  in  Hebrew  are  written 
in  the  kindred  Aramaic  (mentioned  in  2  Kings  18:26 
as  the  “Syrian”  or  Aramaean  language).  The  Aramaic 
portions  are  Ezra  4:8 — 6:  18  and  7:12;  Daniel  2  :  A — 
7:28;  and  Jeremiah  10:  11.  Hebrew  was  the  language 
of  the  people  of  Israel  as  developed  after  the  Conquest 
under  the  powerful  influence  of  the  surrounding  and  inter¬ 
mingling  Canaanitish  tribes.  Like  all  other  languages  it 
passed  through  various  phases  in  the  course  of  its  de¬ 
velopment,  but,  once  formed,  it  fairly  maintained  its 
integrity  as  the  speech  of  the  people  until  after  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  Exile,  which  came  to  an  end  about  538  B.  C.  In 
the  period  of  the  Exile  the  Jews  that  were  left  behind  in 
the  homeland  were  too  weak  to  resist  the  flood  of  Syrians 
that  swept  over  the  land.  Nor  were  the  returning  exiles 
numerous  and  strong  enough  to  stem  the  tide  of  the 
Syrian  language.  The  Hebrew  was,  indeed,  still  long 
maintained  as  the  classical  or  standard  language  of  the 
nation;  in  it  even  the  later  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  for  the  most  part  written.  But  eventually  it  was 
quite  displaced  for  ordinary  uses  by  the  Aramaic.  The 
change  came  about  all  the  more  naturally  because  of  the 
close  kinship  between  the  two  languages.  Aramaic  was 
the  language  of  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Christ,  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  Jesus  and  his  hearers.  It  is  referred  to  several 
times  in  the  New  Testament  (John  5:2;  19:13,  17, 
20;  Acts  21:40;  22:2;  26:14),  where,  however,  it  is 
simply  called  Hebrew.  The  Hebrew  is  a  branch  of  the 


OUTWARD  ASPECTS  OF  THE  BIBLE 


27 


Semitic  family  of  languages  (‘‘Semitic”  from  Shem, 
eldest  son  of  Noah).  Its  most  important  cognates  are 
the  Assyrian,  the  Phoenician,  the  Aramaic,  the  Syriac, 
the  Arabic,  and  the  Ethiopic.  These  languages  show  a 
strong  family  resemblance  among  themselves,  and  they  all 
differ  in  idiom  very  widely  from  the  Indo-European 
family,  which  includes  Sanscrit,  Greek,  Latin,  and  the 
languages  of  modern  Europe.  The  Hebrew  is  character¬ 
ized  by  a  certain  massive  simplicity  of  structure,  and  is 
therefore  an  admirable  instrument  for  narration,  bold 
description,  and  the  expression  of  emotion.  In  case,  how¬ 
ever,  a  writer  is  wanting  in  fire  and  imagination,  the  idiom 
of  the  language  appears  rather  formal  and  dull.  At  its 
best  the  Hebrew  is  a  language  of  great  force  and  charm. 

The  language  of  the  New  Testament  is  Greek.  Not 
the  Greek  of  the  classic  writers  nor  the  standard  form  of 
the  Attic  speech,  but  the  Koine,  or  “common  speech,” 
which  had  been  formed  by  the  merging  of  the  dialects, 
which  accompanied  the  diffusion  of  the  Greek  tongue  fol¬ 
lowing  the  conquests  of  Alexander  the  Great.  Until 
within  a  few  decades  “Biblical  Greek”  was  commonly 
regarded  as  virtually  a  dialect  by  itself,  or  rather  a  corrupt 
form  of  Greek  as  used  by  Jews  who  had  never  mastered 
its  idiom.  Yet  even  as  early  as  1824  a  beginning  had  been 
made  in  the  correction  of  the  traditional  misconception. 
In  that  year  Winer  published  his  Grammar  of  New  Testa¬ 
ment  Greek  in  which  he  showed  that  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament  was  not  the  unregulated,  ungrammatical  speech 
of  aliens,  but  an  established  form  of  the  Greek  tongue. 
It  remained  for  more  recent  research  to  show  that  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament  was  not  only  (as  Winer 
had  shown)  the  established  form  of  Greek  “as  used  by 
the  Hellenists,”  i.e.,  the  Greek-speaking  Jews,  but  that 


28  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


this  “Hellenistic  Greek”  was  just  the  Koine.  Naturally 
this  Koine  when  used  by  Jewish  writers  had  a  flavor  of 
the  Hebrew  (or  Aramaic)  idiom,  since  all  the  New 
Testament  authors  except  Luke  were  Jews.  The  fact, 
however,  that  there  are  Hebraisms  in  the  New  Testament 
does  not  in  the  least  invalidate  the  statement:  the  New 
Testament  writers  used  the  Koine,  the  vernacular  of  the 
Mediterranean  lands.  But  it  was  the  vernacular  “raised 
to  the  level  of  literature.” 

This  new  knowledge  we  owe,  above  all,  to  Adolf  Deiss- 
mann  and  the  late  J.  H.  Moulton.  Their  researches  are 
based  upon  a  multitude  of  Greek  papyri  discovered — 
chiefly  by  Grenfell  and  Hunt — in  old  Egyptian  rubbish 
heaps.  All  of  these  papyri  are  examples  of  the  Koine. 
Many  of  them  date  from  the  time  of  the  New  Testament. 
They  relate,  in  the  main,  to  all  sorts  of  matters  of  every¬ 
day  life.  Some  are  private  letters,  some  are  memoranda 
of  business  transactions,  such  as  bills  of  sale,  receipts, 
contracts,  deeds,  wills,  and  what  not.  A  few — these  are 
of  a  date  later  than  New  Testament  times — purport  to 
give  sayings  of  Jesus,  some  of  which  are  not  recorded  in 
our  Gospels,  while  others  contain  fragments  of  genuine 
New  Testament  writings.  All  in  all,  the  papyri  show  the 
same  linguistic  usage  as  that  of  the  New  Testament.  Now 
it  is  a  matter  of  no  small  historical  interest  that  there  was 
a  “common  speech”  (Koine)  and  that  the  apostles  and 
evangelists  of  Christianity  were  able  to  use  it  freely.  If 
the  question  occurs  to  us  why  the  New  Testament  authors 
did  not  write  in  their  native  tongue  (Aramaic),  we  have 
but  to  reflect  that,  before  there  was  time  or  occasion  for 
the  development  of  much  of  a  Christian  literature,  the 
church’s  great  missionary  activities  had  passed  from 
Jewish  to  Gentile  soil,  where  Greek  was  the  common 


OUTWARD  ASPECTS  OF  THE  BIBLE  29 

tongue.  It  is  very  probable  that  in  the  early  period  while 
Christianity  was  still  predominantly  Jewish,  there  were 
some  small  beginnings  of  a  Christian  literature  in  the 
Aramaic  tongue.  Indeed,  there  is  a  definite  ancient 
tradition  that  Matthew  ^Vrote  a  Gospel  in  Hebrew” 
(Aramaic).  This  little  book  seems  to  have  become — 
probably  in  a  Greek  version — the  chief  basis  of  our 
“Matthew”  and  an  important  source  also  for  Luke  and — 
in  a  much  smaller  measure — even  for  Mark.  But  neither 
this  nor  any  other  primitive  Christian  writing  in  Aramaic 
or  in  any  other  language  than  Greek  has  been  directly 
preserved. 

The  Greek  has  been  universally  admired  for  its  copious- 
ness,  its  flexibility,  its  subtlety,  its  strength  joined  with 
delicacy,  and  its  power  of  self-development.  When  the 
apostles  were  moved  to  go  forth  to  proclaim  their  message 
to  the  whole  world,  there  stood  the  Greek  language,  an 
apt  and  ready  instrument,  like  a  steed  saddled  and  bridled, 
strong  and  swift  to  bear  the  word  to  many  peoples. 

3.  Writing  and  Bookmaking. 

The  early  history  of  the  art  of  writing  is  very  interest¬ 
ing,  but  there  is  no  space  to  sketch  it  here.  For  our 
present  purpose  it  will  be  enough  to  indicate  a  few  of  the 
principal  stages  of  the  development  that  lay  back  of 
Hebrew  literature.  In  Egypt,  picture-writing,  which 
everywhere  has  been  the  first  stage  of  the  art,  had  become 
highly  developed  and  conventionalized  many  centuries 
before  the  Hebrew  people  appeared  in  history.  This 
mode  of  Egyptian  writing  (that  is,  writing  by  means  of 
ideograms)  is  called  hieroglyphic.  Here  and  there  it 
showed  some  approaches  to  alphabetic  writing.  A  later 
Egyptian  mode  of  writing,  called  hieratic,  was  semi-alpha- 


30  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


betic;  even  this  was  in  use  more  than  a  thousand  years 
before  the  time  of  Moses.  It  is  probable  that  alphabetic 
writing,  which  seems  to  have  been  invented  by  the  Phoeni¬ 
cians,  was  largely  based  upon  the  hieratic  mode.  Mean¬ 
while  in  the  Tigris-Euphrates  valley  a  semi-alphabetic 
mode  of  writing  was  developed,  from  which  nearly  all 
traces  of  the  original  pictographic  mode  have  been  oblit¬ 
erated.  This  is  the  cuneiform  system  of  writing;  it  was 
developed  chiefly  by  the  Assyrians.  Modern  archaeolog¬ 
ical  research  has  recovered  great  numbers  of  cuneiform 
inscriptions  and  tablets,  which  disclose  much  of  the  his¬ 
tory  and  mythology  of  ancient  Assyria  and  Babylonia  and 
of  surrounding  lands,  including  Palestine.  As  for  alpha¬ 
betic  writing,  the  Phoenicians  (a  most  enterprising  mari¬ 
time  people)  taught  it  to  neighboring  peoples,  including 
the  Hebrews  and  the  Greeks,  who,  of  course,  introduced 
some  modifications.  All  modern  European  alphabets  are 
based,  in  turn,  upon  that  of  the  Greeks. 

The  antiquity  of  writing  cannot  be  determined.  It  is, 
however,  certain  that  the  earliest  known  Egyptian  inscrip¬ 
tions  reach  back  to  about  5000  B.  C.  There  are  many 
Babylonian  inscriptions  from  about  3750  or  even  4000 
B.  C.  The  earliest  known  remains  of  Palestinian  writing 
are  the  Tel  el-Amarna  tablets,  which  were  vehicles  of 
letters  written  probably  in  the  14th  century  B.  C.  (i.e., 
before  the  Hebrew  conquest  of  the  land),  by  governors  of 
Palestinian  cities  to  their  masters.  Pharaohs  of  Egypt. 
It  is  clear  that  the  art  of  writing  was  known  in  the  coun¬ 
tries  surrounding  Palestine  and  in  Palestine  itself  long 
before  the  Israelites  entered  the  land.  Moses,  having 
been  brought  up  in  the  Egyptian  court,  must  have  under¬ 
stood  the  art  of  writing.  (This  fact,  however,  proves 
nothing  as  to  whether  he  actually  wrote  the  books  tradi- 


OUTWARD  ASPECTS  OF  THE  BIBLE  31 

tionally  ascribed  to  him.)  As  to  the  question  of  the 
antiquity  of  alphabetic  writing,  researches  have  shown 
that  it  made  its  first  appearance  not  later  than  the  17th 
century  B.  C.  How  early  the  Hebrews  began  to  write, 
either  pictographically  or  alphabetically,  has  not  been  de¬ 
termined.  The  earliest  extant  specimens  of  Hebrew  writ¬ 
ing  are  alphabetic  and  consist  of  inscriptions  on  pottery; 
they  date  from  about  1000  B.  C.  But  Hebrew  inscrip¬ 
tions,  of  whatever  age,  are  strangely  few.  We  have 
little  to  show  us  how  the  original  manuscripts  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  must  have  looked.  We  do,  however, 
know  that  the  characters  of  the  oldest  extant  Hebrew 
manuscript  differ  much  from  those  found  in  the  far  more 
ancient  inscriptions. 

The  earliest  material  for  the  reception  of  writing  was 
stone.  The  Old  Testament  affords  a  number  of  interest¬ 
ing  references  to  the  practice  of  making  inscriptions  on 
stone.  The  law  given  at  Sinai  was  “graven  on  tablets 
of  stone”;  and  Moses  commanded  the  people  that,  when 
they  passed  over  the  Jordan,  they  should  set  up  stones 
with  the  law  graven  thereon  (Deut.  27 :  2f ;  Josh.  8 :  30ff ). 
The  earliest  portable  vehicle  of  writing  was  either  the 
wooden  or  the  clay  tablet.  The  latter  was  used  very  ex¬ 
tensively  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria.  The  use  of  skins 
as  a  vehicle  of  writing,  though  it  reaches  back  to  a  great 
antiquity,  was  for  the  most  part  a  later  development.  In 
Palestine  it  had  become  prevalent  before  the  date  of  the 
earliest  books  of  our  Hebrew  Bible.  In  Old  Testament 
times  a  book  was  a  leather  roll,  the  writing,  of  course, 
being  only  on  the  inner  side.  A  greatly  improved  prep¬ 
aration  of  skins,  especially  those  of  sheep  and  goats,  is 
known  as  parchment  (so  named  from  Pergamos,  where 
it  was  extensively  produced).  Parchment  began  to  be 


32  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


widely  used  in  the  second  century  B.  C.  For  many  cen¬ 
turies  thereafter  it  continued  to  be  a  much-cherished 
vehicle  for  the  preservation  and  transmission  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures,  first  of  the  Old  Testament,  then  also 
of  the  New.  Somewhat  later,  however,  papyrus  became 
much  the  commonest  vehicle  of  writing,  being  preferred 
both  for  its  cheapness  and  its  convenience.  It  is  a  prep¬ 
aration  from  the  papyrus  plant,  which  in  ancient  times 
grew  in  great  abundance  on  the  banks  of  the  Nile  and 
elsewhere  in  regions  about  the  Mediterranean  Sea. 
Egypt’s  dry  climate  has  made  possible  the  preservation, 
in  the  debris  of  ruined  cities,  of  many  fragments  of  an¬ 
cient  writings  on  papyrus.  As  to  the  form  of  books,  a 
change  gradually  took  place  in  Greek  and  Latin  countries 
from  the  roll  to  the  tablet  (or  codex)  form.  The  change 
was  consummated  before  the  close  of  the  first  century  of 
the  Christian  era.  The  Hebrews,  however,  clung  to  the 
roll  form;  it  is  used  in  their  synagogues  even  yet.  In 
our  modern  usage  the  technical  description  of  an  ancient 
manuscript  begins  with  the  notation  that  it  is  a  “roll”  or  a 
“codex,”  as  the  case  may  be. 


Chapter  III 


NAMING  THE  SCRIPTURES 

The  word  “Bible”  is  derived  from  the  Greek  hihlia, 
which  means  “books.”  The  base  of  this  Greek  word  is 
byblos  or  biblos,  meaning  papyrus,  or  a  scroll  made  from 
papyrus.  So  biblos  came  to  mean  “book”  (as  in  Matt. 
1:1);  though  the  diminutive  form,  biblion,  whose  plural 
is  biblia,  was  more  common.  Greek-speaking  Christians, 
in  applying  the  term  “biblia”  to  the  books  recognized  as 
Holy  Scriptures,  at  first  generally  used  a  qualifying 
adjective,  such  as  “holy,”  “divine,”  “canonical” ;  later, 
however,  the  usual  designation  was  simply  ta  biblia,  that 
is,  “the  books”  par  excellence.  In  the  course  of  time  the 
word  passed  into  Latin  usage,  where  “by  a  happy  sole¬ 
cism”  the  original  neuter  plural  (genitive  bibliorum)  was 
soon  taken  to  be  a  feminine  singular  (genitive  bibliae) ; 
“biblia”  came  to  mean  “the  book”  rather  than  “the 
books.” 

Another  designation  of  the  Bible  that  was  in  frequent 
use  throughout  the  Middle  Ages  is  bibliotheca,  “library.” 
This  term  was  in  vogue  even  before  biblia.  Jerome,  who 
lived  in  the  fourth  century,  and  made  the  Latin  version 
of  the  Bible  which  became  the  basis  of  the  Vulgate, 
habitually  used  the  term  Bibliotheca.  For  a  considerable 
period  the  adjective  “divina”  or  “sacra”  was  generally 
associated  with  it;  later  it  most  frequently  stood  alone — 
Bibliotheca,  “the  Library.”  The  word  was  used  to  desig¬ 
nate  a  complete  manuscript  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 


34  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


In  English  usage  the  word  “Bible”  occurs  as  the  title 
of  the  collective  book  of  Holy  Scriptures  as  early  as  the 
beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century.  We  may,  however, 
surely  infer  a  much  earlier  date  for  the  first  establishment 
of  this  usage  of  the  word  in  English.  In  the  Durham 
library  catalogue,  written  in  Latin  in  1266,  we  find  the 
following  entry :  “Unam  bibliam  in  iv  magnis  volumini- 
bus  .  .  .  aliam  bibliam  in  duobus  voluminibus”  (one 
Bible  in  four  large  volumes  .  .  .  another  Bible  in  two 
volumes).  It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  vernacular 
usage  of  the  time  was  in  agreement  with  the  Latin  usage. 

In  New  Testament  times  the  Old  Testament  writings 
were  generally  called  “the  scriptures”  or  “the  holy  scrip¬ 
tures”  (Greek  graphai,  graphai  hagiai,  Latin  scripturae, 
scripturae  sacrae).  This  usage  was  naturally  continued 
in  the  Christian  church;  later  the  term  was  applied  as  a 
matter  of  course  also  to  the  New  Testament  writings.  In 
the  New  Testament  itself,  however,  only  once  are  any  of 
the  writings  included  in  it  referred  to  as  being  of  the 
same  order  as  “the  other  scriptures,”  i.e.,  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  writings;  and  this  reference  occurs  in  the  latest  of 
its  writings  (see  2  Peter  3:  16).  When  the  whole  body 
of  the  then  acknowledged  sacred  writings  (that  is,  the 
Old  Testament)  is  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament,  the 
plural,  “the  scriptures,”  is  regularly  used;  occasionally, 
however,  the  singular,  “the  scripture,”  seems  to  be  used 
in  the  collective  sense  as  so  often  by  us  (see  Jn.  10:35; 
Acts  8:32;  1  Peter  2 :  6;  2  Peter  1:20).  But  ordinarily 
such  a  phrase  as  “the  scripture  saith”  refers  not  to  the 
whole  body  of  the  Scriptures,  but  to  a  particular  passage 
or  book.  The  Latin  authors  of  the  Middle  Ages  gen¬ 
erally  used  the  singular  (scriptura)  as  a  collective  term 
rather  than  the  plural  {scripturae).  The  reason  for  the 


NAMING  THE  SCRIPTURES 


35 


change  of  usage  from  the  plural  to  the  singular  was  the 
same  as  in  the  case  of  biblia:  it  was  evidently  the  grow¬ 
ing  sense  of  the  unity  of  the  whole  body  of  writings  that 
brought  it  about. 

Far  less  simple  and  sure  is  the  explanation  of  the  term 
‘nPestament.”  The  word  is  derived  from  the  Latin 
testamentum,  which  means  “wilP^  (compare  our  legal 
formula:  “this  last  will  and  testament”).  Testamentum 
is  the  constant  Latin  rendering  of  the  Greek  word  diatheke 
as  found  both  in  the  New  Testament  and  in  the  Septua- 
gint  (the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament).  In  the 
latter  diatheke  is  the  regular  rendering  of  the  Hebrew 
b'rith,  which  means  “covenant.”  Now  covenant  in  the 
Old  Testament  sense  means  ordinarily  a  compact  between 
two  parties,  as  between  God  and  Israel.  Sometimes, 
however,  it  means  a  gracious  or  promissive  decree  or  dis¬ 
pensation  by  one  party  in  relation  to  a  second  party,  as 
when  God  solemnly  declares  his  gracious  purpose  re¬ 
specting  Israel.  Obviously  this  use  of  the  term  looks  in 
the  direction  of  the  sense  of  testamentum  (will),  for  of 
course  a  “will”  is  a  promissive  decree  or  dispensation,  and 
not  a  compact  between  two  parties.  Most  modern  scholars 
recognize  that  in  the  New  Testament  usage  diatheke  is 
not  just  the  same  as  diatheke  in  the  Septuagint  and  bWith 
in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  where  the  usual  meaning  is  a 
covenant  between  two.  But  neither  is  diatheke  in  the 
New  Testament  “will”  or  “testament”  in  the  technical 
sense.  Rather  it  is  God's  revelation  and  confirmation  of 
his  gracious  purpose  for  the  world.  When  Jesus  at  the 
last  supper  declares :  “This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in 
my  blood,”  he  is  virtually  saying:  Take  this  cup  as  a 
symbol  that  in  my  life  and  death  the  Father  gives  a  new 
and  a  richer  pledge  of  his  love.  The  fuller  revelation  of 


36  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


the  love  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ  is  the  “new  testament,” 
jult  as  the  revelation  of  his  gracious  purpose  toward 
Israel  was  God’s  testament  or  covenant,  now  become 
‘*old.”  Of  course  the  expression  '‘old  testament”  arose 
only  when  it  was  believed  that  a  new  testament  had  been 
given.  The  glory  of  the  old  is  eclipsed  by  the  .excelling 
glory  of  the  new  (2  Cor.  3  :  10).  The  usage  of  the  New 
Testament  writings  is  not  fixed  or  uniform;  what  has 
been  stated  is,  however,  the  fundamental  conception. 
An  examination  of  all  the  English  New  Testament  pas¬ 
sages  containing  the  word  “testament”  or  “covenant” 
will  reward  one;  the  following  are  of  special  interest: 
Matt.  26 :  28  and  parallels ;  Gal.  3  :  15 ;  2  Cor.  3:6;  Heb. 
7:22;  9:  15-20;  13:20.  From  all  this  it  is  clear  that 
originally  it  was  not  the  writings  themselves,  whether  the 
“old”  or  the  “new,”  that  were  thought  of  as  a  testament ; 
the  writings  were  thought  of  simply  as  the  scriptures  of 
or  concerning  a  testament  (covenant).  The  secondary 
usage,  applying  the  term  directly  to  the  writings,  came 
about  most  naturally;  yet  it  should  not  be  allowed  to 
obscure  the  original  sense  of  the  term. 

The  names  of  the  several  hooks  of  the  Bible  are  for 
the  most  part  self-explanatory.  The  ancient  Jewish 
rabbis  referred  to  the  books  of  the  Law  by  taking 
their  opening  words  as  appellations,  e.g..  Genesis  was 
“B’reshith,”  “In  the  beginning.”  '  Our  names  of  the  Old 
Testament  books  are,  however,  derived  from  the  Greek 
version  through  the  Latin  Vulgate.  For  example.  Genesis 
is  the  Greek  for  “Beginning”;  Exodus  means  “the  De¬ 
parture”  (from  Egypt)  ;  Leviticus  is  the  book  concerning 
the  duties  of  the  sons  of  Levi ;  Numbers  (Latin  Numeri, 
Greek  Arithmoi)  is  the  book  concerning  the  numbering 


NAMING  THE  SCRIPTURES  37 

of  the  people;  Deuteronomy  is  “the  second  giving  of 
the  Law.” 

The  naming  of  the  New  Testament  books  presents  no 
problem,  except  in  the  case  of  the  word  “Gospel”  used 
as  a  title.  It  is  well  known  that  the  primary  sense  of  the 
word  (Greek  e^uaggelion,  Latin  evangelium)  is  simply 
“good  tidings.”/  When  Jesus  bids  his  disciples  to  “preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature,”  or  is  himself  referred  to  as 
“preaching  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom,”  or  Paul  writes, 
“I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel,”  there  is,  of  course,  no 
thought  of  a  book  entitled  “Gospel.”  Moreover,  even 
when  the  word  became  the  accepted  title  of  the  memoirs 
of  the  life  of  Christ,  nobody  had  the  thought  of  claiming 
that  these  alone  were  “gospel,”  while  an  apostolic  epistle 
or  oral  discourse  was  something  else  than  gospel.  Prob¬ 
ably  the  key  to  the  problem  of  the  use  of  the  word  as  the 
title  of  Christian  writings  of  a  particular  class  is  to  be 
found  in  the  opening  words  of  the  oldest  of  our  “Gos¬ 
pels,”  namely,  Mark :  “The  beginning  of  the  gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.”  The  words  stand  as  the 
title  of  the  book,  and  they  probably  mean :  “This  book  is 
an  account  of  the  beginning  or  foundation  of  the  good 
tidings.”  At  all  events  the  key  word  in  the  title  is  “gos¬ 
pel”;  and  from  this  circumstance,  combined,  of  course, 
with  a  certain  inherent  fitness  in  the  usage,  the  term 
passed  into  universal  use  as  a  title  of  the  memoirs  of 
Jesus. 


Chapter  IV 


THE  DIVERSITY  AND  UNITY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

The  Bible,  though  we  commonly  speak  of  it  as  one 
book,  is  not,  we  know,  really  a  single  book  but  a  collection 
of  books.  But  we  know  also  that  the  Christian  church 
has  always  seemed  to  recognize  a  certain  unity  in  this 
library.  The  books  were  assembled  and  kept  together 
because  the  church  was  persuaded  that  they  belonged  to¬ 
gether.  So  much,  then,  is  an  obvious  fact;  in  the  usage 
of  the  Church  the  books  constitute  at  least  an  external 
unity.  But  do  they  possess  also  an  essential  inner  unity? 
Is  it  not  possible  that  we  owe  our  idea  of  the  unity  of  the 
Bible  to  the  bookbinder?  Have  we  not,  perhaps,  forced 
upon  these  writings  a  false  appearance  of  unity? 

If  upon  examination  we  find  any  essential  unity  in  this 
diversified  collection,  then  we  shall  have  discovered  some¬ 
thing  unparalleled  in  literary  history.  For  this  collection 
of  books  comprises  all  that  remains  of  perhaps  the  first 
1,000  years  of  Hebrew  literary  production,  and  to  that 
body  of  Hebrew  literature  is  added  the  most  of  what 
remains  of  the  literature  of  primitive  Christianity,  and 
the  whole  has  been  accepted  and  treated  by  the  church  as 
representing  some  essential  unity.  Now  no  one  ever 
thought  of  ascribing  unity  to  the  bulk  of  any  other  na¬ 
tional  literature,  as  the  Greek  or  Roman.  Who  would 
undertake  even  to  select  sixty-six  Greek  books,  bind  them 
in  one  volume,  and  send  them  forth  as  a  unity  ?  What 

38 


THE  DIVERSITY  AND  UNITY  OF  THE  BIBLE  39 


would  hold  them  together?  Then  what  is  it  that  holds 
the  books  of  the  Bible  together? 

As  to  the  Bible,  some  have  asserted  the  unity  without 
recognizing  the  diversity.  Others  have  asserted  the 
diversity  in  such  a  way  as  to  deny  the  unity.  But  the 
unity  of  the  Bible,  which  the  church  asserts,  is  a  higher 
unity,  which  somehow  includes  an  immense  diversity. 

For  the  diversity  of  the  Bible  is  patent  to  all  real  ob¬ 
servers.  The  authors  represented  are  many — we  cannot 
determine  the  exact  number.  They  are,  moreover,  real 
authors,  not  mere  penmen.  Their  individuality  asserts 
itself  everywhere.  In  respect  of  time  the  Biblical  litera¬ 
ture  shows — if  we  go  back  to  the  most  ancient  elements 
incorporated  in  our  Old  Testament  books  as  we  have 
them — a  range  of  at  least  1,300  years.  Its  different  parts 
represent  many  stages  of  social  and  intellectual  advance¬ 
ment,  from  the  cruder  beginnings  of  civilization  to  the 
culture  of  the  Graeco-Roman  world.  The  various  social, 
political  and  religious  conditions  under  which  the  several 
authors  lived  have  left  their  mark  in  their  writings.  The 
authors,  too,  were  men  of  different  temperaments  and  of 
many  grades  of  intellectuality.  Again,  within  the  limits 
of  the  Bible  we  find  examples  of  every  species  of  literature 
known  among  the  ancient  Hebrews.  We  have  examples 
of  early  folklore  in  poetry  and  proverb;  legal  and  ritual 
writings  of  various  ages;  narratives;  annals,  and  other 
historical  writings ;  poetry  of  several  types ;  prophetic  and 
apocalyptic  writings;  and  several  sorts  of  wisdom  litera¬ 
ture.  The  New  Testament  brings  two  essentially  new 
forms  of  literature  (as  compared  with  the  Old  Testament 
forms)  in  the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles.  But  it  is  no  mere 
formal  diversification  that  we  find  in  the  Bible.  There 
are  some  very  material  differences  in  religious  thought 


40  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


and  practical  tendency  represented  in  the  Biblical  litera¬ 
ture.  Do  we  find  the  priestly  doctrines  of  Leviticus  in 
perfect  accord  with  the  denunciations  of  ceremonialism 
in  Amos  and  Micah?  Do  the  books  of  Jonah  and  Esther 
breathe  just  the  same  spirit?  Is  there  no  discordant  note 
in  the  pessimism  of  Ecclesiastes?  Are  there  not  some 
conceptions  of  morality  reflected  in  some  of  the  Old 
Testament  books  which  all  who  have  learned  in  the  school 
of  Christ  utterly  repudiate?  How,  then,  can  we  speak  of 
a  unity  of  the  Bible? 

A  formal  or  mechanical  unity  is  not  to  be  claimed  for 
the  Bible.  Its  ideas  and  expressions,  viewed  in  detail, 
cannot  be  brought  into  perfect  harmony.  In  the  Bible 
we  have  not  a  precise  text-book  or  catechism  of  divine 
knowledge.  The  Bible  is  historically  given ;  it  is  the  prod¬ 
uct,  in  its  parts  and  as  a  whole,  of  a  great  historical  move¬ 
ment.  /The  Scriptures  are  the  literary  remains  and 
monument  of  that  movement;  they  are  the  organic  out¬ 
growth  of  it.  As  the  movement  itself  was  genuinely 
historical,  it  necessarily  showed  at  every  point  the  limita¬ 
tions  and  incompleteness  that  are  inherent  in  all  human 
history.  The  movement  itself  involved  elements  of  con¬ 
flict,  divergent  currents,  sometimes  temporary  retrogres¬ 
sions.  Should  we  then  be  offended  at  finding  that  all 
these  things  have,  in  some  measure,  left  their  imprint 
upon  the  literary  documents  of  the  movement?  Never- 
theless,!  viewed  in  a  large  way,  the  historical  movement 
manifestly  has  a  certain  grand  unity;  the  spiritual  history 
of  Israel  until  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  a^id  the  record 
of  the  life  of  Christ  and  the  first  era  of  the  church — all 
this  constitutes  a  great  spiritual  drama.  If  we  recognize 
a  unity  in  the  history,  we  shall  not  fail  to  discern  a 


THE  DIVERSITY  AND  UNITY  OF  THE  BIBLE  41 


corresponding  unity  in  the  assembled  documents  of  that 
history.  1 

The  field  of  general  history  and  also  the  realm  of  nature 
afford  instructive  analogies  of  this  view  of  the  unity  of 
the  Bible.  The  constitution  of  a  state,  for  instance,  is 
clearly  a  unity.  It  has  had  an  organic  development,  and 
at  any  given  stage,  but  especially  in  its  relative  maturity, 
it  manifests  a  certain  practical  unity,  inasmuch  as  it  is 
the  body  of  fundamental  law,  etc.,  according  to  which 
the  organic  life  of  the  state  actually  expresses  itself. 
Yet  the  course  of  constitutional  history  in  any  state  often 
shows  conflicting  elements,  which  are  gradually  resolved 
in  the  constant  effort  of  the  people  to  realize  the  fullest 
national  well-being.  A  larger  unity  in  the  constitutional 
history  is  evident,  and  the  equally  evident  minor  incon¬ 
gruities  do  not  contradict  that  unity,  for  the  whole  ten¬ 
dency  is  to  overcome  them. 

We  all  recognize  the  higher  unity  of  nature ;  yet  nature 
teems  with  conflicts.  Geology,  for  example,  in  relating  for 
us  the  wonderful  story  of  how  the  earth  came  to  be  what 
it  is — the  fit  habitation  of  man  and  beast — makes  clear  a 
grand  unity  in  that  world-process;  yet  how  strange,  how 
meaningless,  how  retrogressive  some  phases  of  the  process 
se^m  to  have  been! 

The  Bible  is  sometimes  likened  to  a  great  cathedral  that 
was  many  generations  in  building.  The  style  of  the 
structure  is  not  wholly  congruous — it  was  the  product 
of  different  periods  and  of  many  minds.  The  plan  is  not 
just  symmetrical  or  strictly  consistent.  Here  and  there 
are  to  be  seen  relatively  superfluous  chambers  or  oratories 
jutting  out  from  the  main  walls.  Yet  it  is  a  finished 
cathedral  that  we  are  viewing;  and  clearly  it  possesses  a 
very  real  unity.  \In  spite  of  a  diversification  of  style  and 


42  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

the  presence  of  some  relatively  non-essential  elements,  the 
process  of  building  was  guided  by  one  great  effectual 
purpose.  Moreover,  now  that  the  work  is  done,  the 
cathedral  possesses  a  unity  almost  like  that  of  a  living 
organism ;  for  its  use  is  controlled  by  a  single  motive  and 
it  is  hallowed  by  the  presence  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord. 

We  may  also,  as  some  have  suggested,  think  of  the 
Bible  as  one  vast  drama.  According  to  the  Biblical  con¬ 
ception  the  divine  drama  enacts  itself  upon  the  v/hole 
broad  theater  of  human  history  from  the  beginning  to  the 
final  consummation.  Our  Bible  sketches  the  first  and 
second  acts,  and,  in  terms  of  bold  imagery  and  symbolism, 
gives  us  an  insight  into  the  divine  purpose  of  a  final  con¬ 
summation.  The  first  part  might  be  called  “The  Prep¬ 
aration  for  the  Messianic  Kingdom”;  the  second,  “The 
Messiah  and  His  World-Mission”;  the  third,  “The  Mes¬ 
sianic  Consummation.”  The  first  act  is  finished;  the  Old 
Testament  sets  it  forth.  The  third  is  yet  to  come,  only 
its  general  import  having  been  revealed  by  the  spirit  of 
New  Testament  prophecy.  The  second  part  is  still  enact¬ 
ing — we  are,  according  to  the  Biblical  conception,  living 
in  the  New  Testament.  The  fundamental  stage  of  it,  the 
life  of  Christ  and  the  first  expansion  of  the  Church,  is 
already  set  forth  in  the  writings  recognized  by  the  Church 
as  narratives  of  the  first  age  of  Christianity.  Professor 
R.  G.  Moulton,  in  “The  Bible  at  a  Single  View,”  con¬ 
ceives  the  unity  of  the  Bible  in  nearly  the  same  way;  a 
drama  in  two  great  acts,  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New 
Testament.  Between  the  two  falls  the  “Interlude”  of  the 
Wisdom  Literature,  which  he  holds  is  not  an  organic  part 
of  the  action.  Following  the  second  act  stands  the 
“Epilogue”  of  the  Book  of  Revelation. 

This  view  of  the  Bible  as  the  literature  of  a  great 


THE  DIVERSITY  AND  UNITY  OF  THE  BIBLE  43 


spiritual  history  or  drama  enables  us  to  understand  why 
the  full  appreciation  of  the  first  act  is  impossible  without 
the  second,  and  why  the  writers  of  the  primitive  books  re¬ 
lating  to  the  second  act  manifestly  conceive  themselves  to 
be  merely  witnesses  of  the  founding  of  the  universal  king¬ 
dom  of  heaven — its  consummation  is  reserved  for  the 
future. 

This  point  of  view  further  enables  us  to  understand 
that  all  parts  of  Scripture  have  not  the  same  significance 
for  faith.  There  are  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  whose 
significance  for  us  today  is  very  remote  and  indirect. 
The  more  important  books  have  to  do  with  the  essential 
structure  of  the  divine  drama.  Other  books,  such  as  the 
Song  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiastes  and  Esther,  never  played 
a  constructive  part  in  the  drama.  Still  others,  e.g.,  Levit¬ 
icus,  represent  stages  in  the  history  of  Israel,  which, 
because  of  their  inherent  limitations,  were  destined  to  be, 
and  now  long  since  actually  have  been,  left  behind.  Such 
portions  have  naturally  and  properly  fallen  into  a  relative 
disuse.  Yet  even  these  parts  are  not  to  be  despised ;  they, 
too,  if  rightly  read,  will  help  us  to  understand  the  ways  of 
God  with  man. 

!  Without  doubt  the  unifying  center  of  the  Bible  is  Jesus 
Christ.  What  is  the  soul  of  Scripture?  Is  it  not  its 
testimony  to  Jesus  as  the  Christ  ?  Luther  summed  up  the 
whole  matter  when  he  said  “Scripture  is  that  which  has 
to  do  with  Christ.”  The  New  Testament  writings  all 
make  him  their  theme.  Of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
Jesus  himself  said:  “They  testify  of  me.”  Not  that  the 
Old  Testament  prophets  had  the  full  image  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  in  their  minds,  but  that  the  whole  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  history  actually  prepared  the  way  for  the  Christj 
Those  who  were  the  chief  exponents  of  the  spiritual  life 


44  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


of  the  Old  Testament  also  gave  wonderful  expression  to 
the  hope  of  a  larger  glory  that  was  to  be. 

This  higher  unity  of  the  Bible  is  no  mere  dogma,  but 
a  pragmatic  fact.  The  Christian  church  does  actually 
use  the  whole  Bible  and  the  Bible  as  a  whole;  and  her 
use  of  it  is  controlled  by  one  concentrated  purpose.  That 
many  portions  of  it  have  passed  into  a  relative  disuse  does 
not  in  any  way  contradict  this  obvious  general  fact.  Jesus 
Christ  binds  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments  together  in 
an  indissoluble  union. 

The  central  thought  of  this  discussion  may  be  summed 
up  in  the  fine  words  of'Augustine :  “Novum  Testarnentum 
in  Vetere  latet;  Vetus  Testarnentum  in  Novo  patet”  (The 
New  Testament  lies  hidden  in  the  Old;  the  Old  Testament 
lies  open  in  the  New).^ 


Chapter  V 


THE  BIBLE  AND  OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS 

Every  religion  of  civilized  peoples  has  its  literature,  but 
not  every  such  religion  has  its  Bible.  The  term  “Bible” 
we  take  in  this  generic  sense  as  signifying  not  merely 
religious  writings  that  are  highly  esteemed,  but  a  specific 
body  of  literature  acknowledged  by  all  adherents  of  a 
given  religion  as  possessing  for  them  a  certain  sacred 
authority.  Hence  books  of  priestcraft,  manuals  of  dis¬ 
cipline  for  particular  societies  or  orders,  and  the  writings 
specially  acknowledged  by  this  or  that  sect  cannot  be  called 
“Bibles,”  because  the  term  “Bible”  implies  an  acceptance 
and  authority  coextensive  with  a  given  religion.  Only 
a  highly  developed  and  fairly  unified  religion  can  have 
acquired  a  “Bible”  or  “sacred  canon”;  that  is,  a  fixed  list 
of  acknowledged  books.  The  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans 
could  have  no  sacred  canon,  because  their  religions  were 
not  sufficiently  well  organized  and  unified  for  that.  Some¬ 
thing  more  or  less  comparable  to  a  body  of  authoritative 
religious  writings  seems  to  have  been  had  by  the  ancient 
Egyptians,  but  even  they  certainly  had  no  settled  sacred 
canon.  There  do  exist,  however,  several  religious  litera¬ 
tures  which  bear  a  clear  analogy  to  our  Bible.  The  most 
important  of  these  are  the  following: 

(1)  The  Five  Kings  (or  Canons),  the  sacred  books  of 
Confucianism. 

(2)  The  Tao-teh-king  (the  “Canon  of  Virtue”),  the 
sacred  book  of  Taoism  (written  by  Lao-Tsze). 

45 


46  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


(3)  The  Vedas,  the  sacred  books  of  the  Brahmans. 

(4)  The  Tripitaka  (the  “Three  Baskets”),  the  sacred 
6ooks  of  Buddhism. 

(5)  The  Avesta  (or  Zend-Avesta),  the  sacred  books 
of  Zoroastrianism,  the  religion  of  ancient  Persia. 

(6)  The  Mohammedan  Koran.  | 

Confucius  (or  Kung-fu-tsze),  who  lived  about  551— 
478  B.  C.,  is  popularly  supposed  to  be  the  founder  of  the 
religion  (or  rather  ethical  code)  of  China.  Confucius 
himself,  however,  never  pretended  to  be  the  author  of  the 
teaching,  but  only  the  collector  and  conserver  of  the  wis¬ 
dom  of  the  sages  who  had  lived  before  him.  His  system 
cannot  rightly  be  called  a  religion;  it  is  only  a  system  of 
morals  touched  with  the  sentiment  of  veneration  for  the 
past.  He  entertained  the  magnificent  idea  of  bringing  the 
whole  nation  under  the  discipline  of  wise  men.  In  order 
to  accomplish  his  purpose  he  gathered  about  himself 
gifted  disciples,  whom  he  imbued  with  the  same  idea. 
His  disciples  were  to  aid  him  in  carrying  out  his  great 
program.  An  essential  prerequisite  of  his  program  was 
a  literature  which  should  form  the  basis  of  instruction. 
Confucius’  greatest  service  to  his  people  was  to  edit  and 
publish  the  two  chief  religious  or  moral  classics  of  his 
country,  the  Shu-king  and  the  Shi-king,  and  to  win  for 
them  the  deep  and  abiding  reverence  of  his  countrymen 
of  every  rank.  The  first  of  these  two  books  embraces 
many  historical  or  legendary  documents,  which  were  re¬ 
garded  as  having  a  moral  value;  they  dated  from  about 
2000  B.  C.  to  625  B.  C.  The  second  is  a  collection  of 
poems  composed  between  1200  B.  C.  and  600  B.  C.  A 
book  called  Yun-yu,  containing  ethical  and  philosophical 
aphorisms  and  conversations  of  Confucius,  was  edited 
and  published  by  his  disciples  after  his  death.  A  book 


THE  BIBLE  AND  OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS  47 

of  ritual,  the  Li-ki,  belongs  to  a  still  later  date — in  its 
present  form  not  earlier  than  the  second  century  after 
Christ.  A  portion  of  the  literature  of  Confucianism  and 
no  inconsiderable  share  of  influence  in  shaping  the  system 
are  to  be  ascribed  to  Mencius,  the  most  notable  Chinese 
sage  since  Confucius. 

The  system  called  Taoism  (based  upon  the  Tao-teh- 
king  of  Lao-tsze)  is  often  more  or  less  closely  associated 
with  Confucianism.  Lao-tsze  was  an  elder  contemporary 
of  Confucius.  As  the  aim  of  Confucius  was  the  incul¬ 
cation  of  a  social  or  national  morality,  his  chief  emphasis 
was  laid  upon  the  external  proprieties.  Lao-tsze,  on  the 
other  hand,  laid  much  stress  also  upon  the  inwardness 
of  virtue.  He  was  something  of  a  mystic  and  encouraged 
a  life  of  contemplation.  Nevertheless,  even  he  was  more 
ethical  than  religious ;  and  as  a  religion — that  is,  a  system 
inculcating  the  principles  of  dependence  upon  deity — his 
system  has  proved  “a  dismal  failure.” 

The  fundamental  lesson  which  Confucianism  has  to 
teach'  is  reverence.  The  reverence  of  the  gods  is  mildly 
inculcated,  but  the  practice  of  the  usual  acts  of  devotion 
to  them  is  rather  discouraged.  The  proper  objects  of 
reverence  are  age,  wisdom,  learning,  established  authority 
among  men.  The  most  characteristic  expression  of  the 
principle  of  reverence  is  what  is  known  as  ancestor  wor¬ 
ship.  It  was  really  a  grand  conception  of  Confucius  that 
only  a  system  of  national  discipline  in  reverence — rever¬ 
ence  for  law,  authority,  age  and  wisdom — could  be  the 
true  path  to  the  attainment  of  the  ideal  state  or  social 
order.  This  could  give  to  society  a  stability  and  security 
that  arms  could  never  bestow.  Indisputably  there  is  a 
certain  grandeur  in  a  system  that  has  dominated  the 
thought  of  a  great  nation  for  more  than  two  millenniums. 


48  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

There  is  no  little  human  wisdom  in  it.  Yet  with  all  its 
merits  it  is  clear  that  mere  Confucianism  is  no  religion, 
but  only  a  system  of  morals.  But  since  man  is  not  satis¬ 
fied  without  positive  religion,  religious  sentiments  and 
practices  are  commonly  found  associated  with  the  ethical 
system.  Confucianism  a  mere  ethical  system;  Taoism 
an  ethical  system  of  a  more  inward  tendency,  contempla¬ 
tive  and  ascetic,  and  so  more  akin  to  the  religious  senti¬ 
ment;  and  the  crude  positive  religion  of  the  common 
people — these  are  not  altogether  mutually  incompatible 
systems.  The  common  people  are  expected,  along  with 
their  worship,  to  pay  due  heed  to  the  teachings  of  Con¬ 
fucius  and  Lao-tsze,  while  the  men  of  some  learning 
generally  respect-— though  unequally — all  the  “classics,” 
both  those  of  Confucianism  and  those  of  Taoism,  and  at 
the  same  time  are  indulgent  toward  the  cruder  worship 
of  the  common  people.  But  obviously  these  classics, 
being  chiefly  books  of  moral  wisdom  rather  than  the 
standards  of  teaching  and  practice  in  religion,  show  no 
close  analogy  to  our  Bible,  whose  very  soul  is  religion. 
The  portions  of  our  Bible  which  most  resemble  the  Chi¬ 
nese  classics,  viz.,  the  Wisdom  Literature  (apart  from 
Job),  are  not  the  heart  of  the  Bible. 

From  India  have  flowed  two  streams  of  religion  and 
religious  literature.  Brahmanism  (out  of  which  has 
developed  modern  Hinduism)  is  essentially  national  in 
its  spirit,  while  Buddhism  appeals  to  humanity  without 
respect  to  race.  Of  the  holy  books  of  Brahmanism  the 
first  place  belongs  to  the  four  very  ancient  collections  of 
poems  called  the  Vedas.  They  are  the  Rig-Veda,  the 
Atharva-Veda,  the  Y agur-V eda,  and  the  Soma-Veda.  To 
those  must  be  added,  as  sacred  though  of  a  secondary 
order,  the  Brahmanas  or  ritualistic  commentaries  upon 


THE  BIBLE  AND  OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS  49 


them,  and  the  Upanishads  or  speculative  treatises  upon 
the  philosophy  of  the  universe  which  the  Vedas  were 
supposed  to  imply.  According  to  the  wider  use  of  the 
term,  all  these  form  part  of  the  Veda,  or  “Knowledge,” 
They  all  are,  according  to  Brahman  belief,  fully  inspired, 
therefore  complete,  inerrant  and  eternal.  There  are  also 
certain  later  religious  books  which,  though  held  in  high 
esteem,  are  accounted  of  secondary  ranks.  Books  of  the 
first  rank  were  technically  called  “S’ruti,”  or  “Hearing,” 
because  they  were  given  by  inspiration.  The  books  of 
the  second  order  were  called  “Smriti,”  or  “Remembering” 
(tradition).  Of  the  Vedas,  the  oldest  is  the  Rig- Veda. 
It  is  interesting  from  many  points  of  view.  It  sheds  light 
not  only  on  the  earliest  form  of  religion  now  traceable 
among  the  Aryan  peoples,  but  also  upon  the  manners  and 
customs  and  the  ways  of  thinking  of  those  early  invaders 
of  India  from  the  northwest.  These  Aryans  were  near 
kindred  to  the  Greeks  and  Romans;  their  language  was 
of  the  same  stock,  and  their  religion  was  similar  at  many 
points.  The  most  interesting  of  the  secondary  books  are 
the  Laws  of  Menu  and  the  Epics.  The  first  is  character¬ 
ized  by  an  intermingling  of  salutary  and  injurious  ideals. 
Among  the  latter  is  the  law  of  caste,  which  has  wrought 
such  damage  to  the  life  of  the  people  of  India.  The 
Epics  were  the  chief  books  among  the  common  people. 
Rich  in  myth  and  legend,  they  were  mightily  interesting 
and  at  the  same  time  moralizing.  And  as  they  fairly 
reflected  the  prevailing  religion,  they  constituted  the  peo¬ 
ple’s  Bible.  The  religion  reflected  in  all  this  rich  literature 
is  a  polytheism  of  a  very  interesting  complexity.  In  its 
earlier  form  it  had  much  of  the  “healthy-mindedness”  of 
the  Greek  religion.  The  later  development  shows  a  sad 
deterioration;  the  caste  system,  the  deplorable  subjection 


50 


AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


of  women,  and  some  other  vicious  features  of  later 
Hinduism  have  no  place  in  the  Vedas.  The  books  which 
have  been  so  long  and  so  highly  reverenced  gradually  lost 
their  hold  upon  the  national  mind,  and  there  came  in  their 
place  gross  and  degrading  superstition  among  the  common 
people,  and,  among  the  Brahmans  (the  highest  caste) 
highly  wrought  systems  of  speculation  that  have  proved 
themselves  powerless  to  heal  the  people’s  misery. 

For  many  reasons  Buddhism  is  one  of  the  most  inter¬ 
esting  of  the  non-Christian  religions.  It  is — above  all 
other  non-Biblical  systems — -a  religion  of  redemption. 
And  because  it  is  a  religion  of  redemption,  a  religion  that 
takes  full-seriously  the  problem  of  evil  in  human  life,  it 
shows  some  marked  resemblances  to  Christianity.  Its 
early  history  is  not  free  from  obscurity.  It  is,  however, 
generally  agreed  that  it  arose  about  the  middle  of  the  sixth 
century  B.  C.  in  Hindustan.  According  to  the  earliest 
tradition  its  founder  was  a  young  prince  whose  family 
name  was  Gotama;  because  of  his  great  repute  as  a 
religious  reformer  he  was  later  called  “the  Buddha”  (“the 
Enlightened”).  The  story  of  how  the  young  prince,  al¬ 
ways  predisposed  to  a  life  of  contemplation  and  asceti¬ 
cism,  and  moved  by  powerful  direct  impressions  of  the 
world’s  misery,  forsook  the  luxury  and  splendor  of  the 
court  for  the  life  of  poverty  and  self-abasement  is  very 
impressive.  He  became  a  mendicant,  and  by  self-inflicted 
austerities,  coupled  with  the  earnest  study  of  the  books  of 
the  Brahmans,  he  sought  for  peace.  Though  for  a  time 
bitterly  disappointed,  he  does  not  give  up  his  pursuit. 
With  intensest  resolution  to  find  the  secret  of  peace  he 
gives  himself  over  to  deep  thought.  For  weeks  he  sits 
absorbed  in  contemplation.  It  is  the  misery  of  human  life 
that  is  his  problem.  He  finds  existence  itself  to  be  an  evil. 


THE  BIBLE  AND  OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS  51 


By  successive  stages  of  contemplation  he  reaches  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  the  cause  of  the  continued  existence  with  its 
hopeless  struggle  is  ignorance.  Enlightenment  will  over¬ 
come  the  fate  to  be  continually  reborn.  Sitting  under 
a  certain  bo-tree — the  spot  came  to  be  held  by  his  disciples 
as  the  most  sacred  in  all  the  world — he  experienced  in 
his  own  person  the  great  Illumination.  As  the  “Enlight¬ 
ened”  he  now  imdertakes  to  guide  others  in  the  Way. 

The  system  of  the  Buddha  is  based  upon  four  prin¬ 
ciples,  the  “four  noble  truths”:  pain  exists;  its  cause  is 
desire;  pain  can  be  ended  by  eliminating  desire;  the  way 
of  virtue  brings  the  mortification  of  all  desire.  This  way 
of  virtue  he  elaborates ;  it  is  an  eightfold  way :  right  faith, 
right  judgment,  right  words,  right  purpose,  right  prac¬ 
tice,  right  effort,  right  thinking,  and  right  meditation. 
He  further  adds,  as  necessary  to  the  practice  of  the  Way, 
the  ten  “precepts  of  aversion”:  not  to  kill;  not  to  steal; 
not  to  commit  adultery;  not  to  lie;  not  to  be  drunken — 
these  five  are  for  all  his  disciples;  the  remaining  five  are 
for  those  who  enter  upon  the  monastic  life: — to  abstain 
from  food  out  of  season  (i.  e.,  after  midday)  ;  to  abstain 
from  personal  ornaments  and  perfumes ;  to  abstain  from 
a  luxurious  couch ;  to  abstain  from  taking  gold  or  silver. 
Thus  would  the  Buddha  show  the  way  back  from  the  evil 
of  individual  existence  to  the  wholeness  of  being.  The 
goal  he  calls  Nirvana;  it  is  the  state  of  the  total  extinc¬ 
tion  of  desire  and  individual  consciousness ;  the  Buddhist 
ideal  is  a  passionless  peace. 

The  immense  significance  of  Buddhism  is  due  to  the 
energy  and  deep  earnestness  with  which  it  laid  hold  on 
certain  great  principles.  It  is  a  very  human  and  humane 
religion.  The  limitations  of  race  and  caste  are  quite 
disregarded.  The  highest  virtue  is  compassion,  charity. 


62  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


And  the  universal  problem  of  human  suffering  is  frankly, 
even  if  pessimistically,  dealt  with.  A  clear  doctrine  of 
deity  is  not  found  in  Buddhism.  After  a  time  the 
Buddha  himself  became  the  object  of  special  veneration, 
but  not  as  a  god.  The  reality  of  an  eternal  First  Prin¬ 
ciple  seems  to  be  presupposed,  but  Buddhism  has  no  doc¬ 
trine  of  a  conscious  fellowship  with  God.  Buddhism  is 
indeed  a  religion  of  redemption,  but  is  a  self-redemption. 
Not  by  divine  grace  but  by  self-discipline  is  salvation  to 
come.  Nevertheless,  Buddhists  do  pray  in  spite  of  their 
doctrine,  for  they  recognize  the  futility  of  striving  to  do 
as  they  would  without  help. 

The  sacred  canon  of  Buddhism  is  not  everywhere  the 
same;  the  southern  canon,  however,  enjoys  the  highest 
repute,  and  on  it  the  others  seem  to  be  based.  It  is  a 
threefold  literature,  and  is  called  ‘‘The  Three  Baskets.” 
The  first  of  the  three  is  a  full  manual  of  instruction  for 
the  communities  of  monks,  who,  following  the  example 
of  Gotama,  are  pursuing  the  straight  path  toward  Nir¬ 
vana.  The  second  Basket  contains  reminiscences  of 
Buddha’s  parables,  dialogues  with  his  disciples,  and  ser¬ 
mons,  to  which  are  added  some  devotional  poems  and 
stories.  This  group  of  writings  represents  Buddhism  as 
adapted  to  common  life.  The  third  Basket  contains  a 
number  of  treatises  of  a  philosophic  nature  bearing  on  the 
faith  of  Buddhism.  The  Three  Baskets  are  in  no  part 
writings  of  Buddha  himself.  His  doctrines  were  orally 
given ;  disciples  wrote  as  they  remembered ;  and  then  there 
were  later  additions  and  expositions.  These  writings  are 
in  many  ways  impressive.  They  are  very  carefully  fitted 
to  their  purpose  and  have  exerted  a  powerful  influence 
in  shaping  the  history  of  Buddhism.  Yet  they  no  longer 
hold  the  place  in  the  religion  of  the  people  that  they  once 


THE  BIBLE  AND  OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS  53 


occupied.  The  religion  has  gradually  drifted  away  from 
the  high  ideals  of  its  classic  period.  But  the  writings  da 
fairly  represent  Buddhism  in  its  early  vigor.  This  system 
is  to  be  named  along  with  Christianity  and  Islam  as  one 
of  the  three  great  missionary  and  universalistic  religions 
of  the  world.  Though  having  sprung  up  in  India,  it  has 
now,  strangely  enough,  very  few  representatives  in 
that  country ;  but  it  made,  especially  in  a  remarkable  mis¬ 
sionary  period  beginning  about  300  B.  C.,  great  conquests 
in  other  countries  of  Asia.  It  is  still  the  prevailing 
religion  of  Ceylon,  the  Indo-Chinese  Peninsula,  Nepal, 
Thibet,  Turkestan,  Japan,  Korea,  and  very  large  portions 
of  China.  In  all  these  several  countries  it  has  taken  on 
different  forms.  It  was  a  profound,  though  (we  believe) 
sadly  one-sided,  conception  of  life  and  duty  that  made 
possible  its  great  triumphs.  ‘‘The  Buddha,”  says  Max 
Muller,  “addressed  himself  to  castes  and  outcasts.  He 
promised  salvation  to  all  men.  A  sense  of  duty  extending 
from  the  narrow  limits  of  the  house,  the  village,  and 
the  country,  to  the  widest  circle  of  mankind,  a  feeling  of 
sympathy  and  brotherhood  toward  all  men,  the  idea,  in 
fact,  of  humanity,  were  first  pronounced  by  Buddha.” 

The  sacred  book  of  Zoroastrianism,  the  religion  of  the 
ancient  Persians,  is  commonly  called  the  Zend-Avesta. 
Properly,  however,  “Avesta”  is  the  fundamental  writing, 
or  text,  and  “Zend”  is  the  commentary  upon  it.  “Avesta,” 
like  “Veda,”  means  knowledge  divinely  given.  But  in 
the  Avesta  we  have  to  distinguish  between  the  Gathas, 
which  contain  the  original  teaching  of  Zoroaster  as 
remembered  and  transcribed  by  his  disciples,  and  the 
later  portions  of  the  Avesta.  In  the  former  the  prophet 
appears  as  a  very  real  and  natural  person,  and  his  doc¬ 
trine  is  simple  and  comparatively  pure.  In  the  latter  the 


54  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


figure  of  the  prophet  is  surrounded  by  many  extravagant 
legends.  In  the  former  we  have  an  approach  to  a  genuine 
monotheism :  there  is  one  Lord  of  good,  Ahura  Mazda, 
who  is  the  only  God  to  worship ;  but  there  is  also  a  mighty 
spirit  of  evil,  who  is  in  perpetual  conflict  with  the  good 
God.  In  the  later  portions  the  tendency  to  dualism  (the 
recognition  of  two  eternal  principles  or  persons,  one  of 
them  good,  the  other  evil)  has  developed  to  an  injurious 
degree;  and  the  simpler  conceptions  of  the  unseen  world 
have  given  place  to  a  luxuriant  mythology  with  a  super¬ 
abundance  of  angels  good  and  bad.  Without  question, 
early  Zoroastrianism  was  a  religion  of  a  very  high  order. 
What  various  causes  led  to  its  corruption  cannot  be  easily 
pointed  out.  But  we  meet  here  only  what  we  meet  every¬ 
where  in  non-Biblical  systems — a  decline,  sometimes  slow, 
sometimes  swift,  from  the  higher  ideals.  Incidentally  it 
should  be  noted  that  some  of  the  ideas  of  the  Parsees 
(the  adherents  of  the  religion  of  Persia)  very  consider¬ 
ably  affected  the  later  religious  development  of  Judaism. 
This  holds  true  especially  of  the  conceptions  of  angels 
and  spirits,  which  were  marked  features  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Jewish  party  known  as  Pharisees. 

Mohammed  was  one  of  the  greatest  reformers.  His 
earliest  utterances  have  much  of  the  purity  and  elevation 
of  sentiment  which  we  find  in  the  prophets  of  the  Old 
Testament.  His  religious  ideas  he  learned  in  no  small 
part  from  the  Old  Testament;  there  are  traces  also  of 
the  positive  influence  of  Christianity,  although  he  had 
met  with  Christianity  only  in  a  rather  corrupt  form.  His 
religion  was  a  genuine  monotheism.  His  early  zeal  for 
the  truth  was  worthy  of  very  high  praise;  so  also  was 
his  insistence  upon  compassion,  prayer,  self-control,  and 
self-abnegation.  But  along  with  the  good  in  his  doctrine 


THE  BIBLE  AND  OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS  55 

there  were  certain  vicious  elements,  which  brought  about 
a  swift  deterioration  in  his  teaching  and  its  influence. 
He  yielded  much  to  the  fleshly  mind  of  his  followers. 
The  obligation  of  “holy  war”  against  unbelievers,  the 
solemn  sanction  of  polygamy  and  slavery,  together  with 
various  corrupting  superstitions,  all  have  the  support  of 
the  dogma  of  the  complete  divine  inspiration  of  every 
part  of  the  Koran.  The  later  degradation  of  Islam  is 
a  matter  of  common  knowledge. 

What  now  is  the  relation  of  our  Bible  to  these  other 
sacred  books?  Have  all  “Bibles”  some  elements  or  fea¬ 
tures  in  common?  If  this  is  affirmed,  the  question  pre¬ 
sents  itself :  What  is  the  nature  of  the  likeness,  and  what 
is  its  cause?  And  the  differences — do  these  pertain  only 
to  minor  or  non-essential  matters,  or  do  they  pertain  also 
to  matters  of  fundamental  significance?  Is  our  Bible 
merely  the  “best”  among  books  of  a  class,  or  is  it  some¬ 
thing  unique  ? 

The  special  discussion  of  the  Christian  claim  of  a 
unique  place  for  our  Bible  is  reserved  for  a  later  chapter. 
For  the  present  it  will  be  sufficient,  by  a  brief  comparison 
of  the  formal  aspects  and  the  historical  relations  of  the 
various  sacred  literatures,  to  make  clear  the  nature  of  the 
problem  and  to  point  out  the  way  to  its  solution. 

We  shall  consider  first  the  things  that  are  common  to 
all  “Bibles.” 

(1)  In  the  first  place,  every  “Bible”  is  a  growth;  it  is, 
moreover,  an  outgrowth.  It  is  never  a  production  struck 
out  at  a  single  heat;  it  is  the  literary  outgrowth  of  a 
religious  history.  First  the  religion,  afterward  its  books. 
Before  the  stage  of  literary  record  has  come,  the  religion 
has  had  a  history,  sometimes  a  rather  long  one.  In  the 
case  of  most  sacred  books  the  writers  gathered  up  much 


56  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

that  had  come  down  from  more  or  less  remote  times. 
Even  when  a  bold  new  movement,  such  as  that  under 
Moses  or  that  under  Mohammed,  begins  to  take  shape, 
we  may  be  sure  that  there  has  been  a  long  preparatory 
history  before  it.  How  far  back,  for  example,  the  roots 
of  Islam  reach !  Mohammed  could  not  have  been  what  he 
was  if  Moses  and  Jesus  had  not  been.  Whatever  may  be 
one’s  belief  as  to  the  divine  source  of  the  contents  of  a 
sacred  literature,  it  is  clear  that  every  ‘‘Bible”  has  its 
natural  history. 

(2)  An  essential  part  of  the  natural  history  of  a  sacred 
literature  is  the  process  by  which  it  comes  to  be  accepted 
as  such.  No  religious  literature  is  “sacred”  immediately 
at  birth.  Its  full  recognition  or  canonization  is  the  result 
of  a  process.  If  exceptions  to  this  rule  are  proposed,  it 
can  be  readily  shown  that  they  are  only  apparent.  If,  for 
instance,  the  Koran  of  Mohammed  was  immediately  ac¬ 
cepted  by  his  followers,  it  was  because  his  oral  teaching 
had  already  won  its  way;  it  was  no  further  step  for  his 
disciples  to  acknowledge  the  transcriptions  of  that  which 
they  had  already  received  by  word  of  mouth.  Now  what 
are  the  steps  leading  to  the  canonization  of  a  religious 
literature?  First  of  all  a  considerable  group  accepts  a 
certain  faith;  there  is  a  religious  movement.  If  the  move¬ 
ment  is  strong  and  expansive,  it  will  call  forth  a  literature. 
Whatever  is  written  in  behalf  of  the  movement  finds  eager 
readers.  In  the  process  of  using  the  various  writings  in 
the  organized  life  of  the  religious  community  some  will 
appear  more  satisfying  and  serviceable  than  others.  The 
relatively  unavailable  writings  are  gradually  set  aside ;  the 
rest  are  regarded,  as  time  goes  by,  with  increasing  venera¬ 
tion — for  time  is  a  very  important  factor  in  the  growth 
of  the  idea  of  sanctity — ^and  these  at  length  are  “canon- 


THE  BIBLE  AND  OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS  57 


ized” ;  i.e.,  regarded  as  sacred  and  authoritative.  In  nearly 
every  instance  canonization  implies  the  acknowledgment 
of  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  books.  As  every  serious 
religion  is  exclusive  in  its  claims,  so  also  the  canonization 
of  its  representative  writings  implies  the  repudiation  of 
all  books  of  a  different  faith.  “Bibles”  tolerate  no  rivals. 
While  a  candid  inquiry  shows  that  all  books  of  religion 
contain  much  that  is  true  and  good,  the  largest  concession 
that  the  adherents  of  one  faith  can  make  to  the  claims  of 
the  books  of  another  faith  is :  Here  are  “broken  lights,” 
but  the  perfect  truth  is  revealed  in  their  own  sacred  books. 
A  classic  example  of  the  extreme  intolerance  of  a  positive 
religion  is  the  conduct  of  the  Moslems  in  destroying  the 
great  library  at  Alexandria.  “If  the  books  are  in  agree¬ 
ment  with  the  Koran,  they  are  needless;  if  they  are 
contrary  to  it,  they  are  false,  and  should  be  destroyed.” 

When  we  pass  on  to  a  comparison  of  the  world  of  ideas 
as  exhibited  in  the  several  “Bibles,”  it  is  important  that 
we  fix  our  eyes  upon  the  fundamental  principles  and  not 
upon  mere  details.  Some  Christians  read  the  books  of 
other  religions  only  to  disparage  them.  This,  of  course, 
is  without  reason  or  excuse.  There  is  much  of  truth  and 
beauty  in  the  sacred  books  of  the  non-Christian  religions. 
However,  to  discover  these  things  in  them  is  by  no  means 
the  same  as  to  acknowledge  their  sufficiency  as  a  whole. 
Whoever  reads  the  Chinese  classics  is  sure  to  find  many 
admirable  moral  precepts.  No  saying  of  Confucius  has 
been  oftener  quoted  than  the  following.  Being  asked, 
“Is  there  any  one  word  which  may  serve  as  a  rule  of 
practice  for  all  one’s  life?”,  Confucius  replied:  “Is  not 
reciprocity  such  a  word  ?  What  you  do  not  want  done  to 
yourself,  do  not  do  to  others.”  The  resemblance  of  this 
saying  to  the  “Golden  Rule”  of  Jesus  has  been  often 


58  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


remarked.  The  fact  that  the  Confucian  form  is  negative, 
while  that  of  Jesus  is  positive,  need  not  be  so  strongly- 
emphasized  as  is  often  done.  The  superiority  of  Jesus 
will  be  neither  established  nor  overthrown  by  the  com¬ 
parison  of  mere  details.  Many  another  passage  from 
Confucius  is  no  less  fine  and  noble  than  this.  Many 
inspiring  passages  may  be  found  also  in  the  Vedas,  in  the 
Tripitaka,  in  the  Avesta,  in  the  Koran.  Take,  for  exam¬ 
ple,  this  saying  of  Buddha:  “If  a  man  foolishly  does  me 
a  wrong,  I  will  return  to  him  the  protection  of  my 
ungrudging  love.  The  more  evil  cometh  from  him,  the 
more  good  shall  come  from  me.”  Or  this :  “Let  a  man 
overcome  anger  by  love,  evil  by  good,  the  greedy  by 
liberality,  the  liar  by  truth.” 

The  occurrence  of  such  sentiments  in  non-Christian 
books  has  led  many  to  conclude  that  the  difference  between 
our  Bible  and  other  sacred  books  is  “simply  one  of  degree, 
not  of  kind.”  The  thesis  holds  only  within  certain  limits ; 
it  does  not  hold  in  respect  to  the  innermost  essence  of  the 
Biblical  message.  No  sacred  literature  is  without  many 
expressions  of  moral  earnestness  and  religious  devotion. 
It  could  not  be  otherwise.  Of  all  the  interests  of  human¬ 
ity  the  religious  interest  is  the  deepest.  Normally  it  is  the 
all-comprehensive  interest.  Religion  springs  from  a  sense 
of  dependence  upon  a  higher  Power;  its  motive  is  the 
desire  to  attain  peace  and  fellowship  with  that  Power. 
Hence  among  all  religions  there  must  be  a  certain  kinship 
in  spiritual  aspiration,  some  likeness  in  religious  devotion, 
some  community  of  moral  earnestness  coupled  with  a 
sense  of  the  divine  sanction  of  right  conduct.  From  all 
this,  however,  it  does  not  follow  that  religions  differ  only 
in  degree,  and  not  in  kind.  The  universal  “sympathy  of 
religions” — a  common  sense  of  need,  devotedness  in 


THE  BIBLE  AND  OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS  69 


religious  practices — this  is  no  proof  that  the  real  content 
of  all  religions  is  fundamentally  one.  The  real  issue  lies 
deeper.  Every  religion  must  be  judged  by  its  funda¬ 
mental  principle  and  tendency.  So  also  with  the  sacred 
books  that  represent  a  religion.  It  must  be  our  aim, 
therefore,  to  determine  and  estimate  the  fundamental 
peculiarity  of  our  Bible  in  comparison  with  other  sacred 
books. 

In  the  path  of  our  quest  for  the  essential  peculiarity  of 
our  Bible  we  shall  meet  with  some  interesting  and  signifi¬ 
cant  facts. 

(1)  One  might  be  struck  first  of  all  with  the  un¬ 
matched  literary  variety  of  our  Bible.  In  comparison  all 
other  “Bibles”  are  narrow  in  their  range.  Some  of  them 
are  at  best  only  collections  of  hymns,  prayers  and  ritual. 
Besides  these,  prophetic  oracles  are  in  some  others  an 
important  element.  Still  others  include  also  a  system  of 
morals — in  the  books  of  Confucius  there  is  virtually 
nothing  else.  On  the  other  hand,  our  Bible  freely  and 
effectively  uses  every  form  and  variety  of  literature 
known  to  the  people  from  whom  it  sprang. 

(2)  The  ethnic  Bibles,  taken  as  a  whole,  are  special 
books  of  religion  (or  morals),  while  the  scope  of  our 
Bible  is  so  comprehensive  as  to  deserve  to  be  called  a 
book  of  life.  Yet  our  Bible  is  not  on  this  account  less 
a  book  of  religion  than  the  others,  but  rather  much  more ! 
For  while  the  other  sacred  books  regard  religion  as  one — 
perhaps  indeed  as  the  chief — concern  of  man,  the  Bible 
regards  the  kingdom  of  God  as  the  whole  of  good  and  the 
service  of  God  as  embracing  the  whole  of  real  life.  In 
the  Bible  the  vicious  dualism  which  divides  life  into  the 
^‘religious”  and  the  “secular”  is  overcome. 

(3)  It  is  scarcely  a  step  to  our  third  observation.  Our 


60  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

Bible — at  least  in  all  its  weightier  portions — is  funda¬ 
mentally  historical,  while  the  non-Christian  Bibles  are 
essentially  unhistorical.  The  ethnic  sacred  books  in  no 
case  represent  their  doctrine  as  slowly  and  divinely 
wrought  out  in  the  life  of  a  people.  The  doctrine  is 
stated,  explained,  defended;  to  it  is  added  a  system  of 
ritual ;  but  the  religion  is  never  conceived  of  as  interwoven 
with  the  whole  life  of  a  nation  and  of  the  race.  The  case 
with  our  Bible  is  quite  the  reverse.  With  the  exception 
of  much  of  the  ceremonial  system  of  the  Old  Testament, 
all  of  which  long  ago  was  laid  aside  as  an  outworn  gar¬ 
ment,  there  is  no  religion  in  our  Bible  that  is  not  inter¬ 
woven  with  human  life  in  its  struggles,  temptations,  sins, 
repentings,  spiritual  triumphs.  No  other  book  in  all 
literature  is  so  intensely  a  book  of  human  experiences  as 
our  Bible ;  and  yet  the  center  of  interest  in  it  is  not  what 
men  have  felt  and  thought,  but  what  God  has  wrought.  | 
(4)  Again,  but  a  step!  -  The  non-Christian  sacred 
books  are  invariably  tmprogr^ssive ;  they  are  either  retro¬ 
gressive  or  decadent  in  tendency ;  our  Bible  alone  is 
progressive.^  “The  oldest  portions  of  the  several  collec¬ 
tions  of  the^  Chinese,  Indian,  and  Persian  Scriptures  are 
confessedly  the  noblest  in  thought  and  aspiration;  and, 
secondly,  ritual  in  each  case  has  finally  overpowered  the 
strivings  after  a  personal  and  spiritual  fellowship  with 
God”  (Westcott).  We  do  not  forget  that  ritualism  and 
formalism  also  once  threatened  to  overwhelm  the  pro¬ 
phetic  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament;  but  they  failed  to 
accomplish  such  a  result.  The  prophetic  spirit  was  too 
persistent  and  powerful  for  that.  We  now  see  very 
clearly — in  the  light  of  the  fulfillment  in  Christ — ^that 
ceremonialism  never  did  truly  represent  the  essence  of 
the  religion  of  the  Bible,  Only  a  religion  in  which  the 


THE  BIBLE  AND  OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS  61 


prophetic  spirit — the  spirit  that  is  fully  conscious  of  the 
progressive  life  of  the  divine  Spirit  among  men  from 
generation  to  generation — only  such  a  religion  can  be  pro¬ 
gressive.  A  religion  of  ritual  is  always  and  necessarily 
retrogressive.  The  New  Testament  of  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  triumph  of  the  religion  of  the  Spirit.  And  because 
it  is  the  religion  of  the  Spirit,  our  relation  to  our  Bible 
does  not  enchain  us  to  a  dead  past,  but  bids  us  look  not 
only  to  the  Christ  that  was,  but  also  to  the  Christ  that  is, 
and  to  the  Christ  that  is  to  be.  In  the  New  Testament 
there  is,  strictly  speaking,  not  one  shred  of  mere  ritual 
left,  for  the  Christian  sacraments  are  no  mere  rites.  They 
are  visible  signs  of  the  presence  and  work  of  the  living 
Christ  through  his  Spirit.  Unless  used  in  the  Spirit  they 
have  neither  place  nor  meaning  in  Christianity. 

(5)  With  the  exception  of  the  Chinese  classics,  all  the 
world’s  “Bibles”  lay  claim  to  divine  revelation  and  inspi¬ 
ration.  Is  the  claim  equally  false  in  all,  or  unequally 
true  in  all,  or  true  in  one  and  false  in  the  rest?  It  is 
quite  unnecessary  to  claim  that  God  has  not  spoken  at 
all  to  the  peoples,  past  or  present,  who  have  been  without 
our  Bible.  Nevertheless,  however  highly  we  may  esti¬ 
mate  the  value  of  the  various  religious  conceptions  which 
we  find  in  the  non-Christian  systems,  it  seems  clear  that 
those  peoples  have  had  (or  have)  no  satisfying  knowledge 
of  God.  But  God,  the  living  God,  was  known  in  Israel. 
He  is  revealed  in  the  fulness  of  his  grace  in  Jesus  Christ. 
The  ethnic  conception  of  revelation  is  that  ideas  are 
revealed;  the  Biblical  conception  is  that  God  reveals  him-^ 
self.  The  Bible  purports  to  be  the  testimony  of  faithful 
men  who  have  had  fellowship  with  the  God  of  history, 
the  God  who  above  all  has  revealed  himself  in  the  Christ 
of  history.  In  other  words,  the  Bible  is  not  itself  the 


62  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


revelation,  but  is  the  word  of  testimony  concerning  the 
revelation. 

This,  then,  is  the  fundamental  difference  between  our 
Bible  and  the  “Bibles”  of  the  non-Christian  world  :*  our 
Bible  has  sprung  from  a  sure  and  clear  knowledge  of  the 
one  true  God,  while  the  others  fall  short  of  that  knowl¬ 
edge.  Our  Bible  alone  gives  us  the  Christ,  and  the  Christ 
alone  gives  us  a  full  and  satisfying  fellowship  with  God. 
The  claim  that  there  are  degrees  of  revelation  and  inspi¬ 
ration  in  all  religions,  “Christianity  being  the  best  and 
richest  religion  hitherto,”  fails  to  do  full  justice  to  the 
great  fact  of  Christ.  Is  there  not,  after  all,  a  measureless 
distance  between  the  religions  that  have  not  and  the 
religion  that  has  the  Christ?  And  does  not  the  bearing 
of  the  message  of  the  Christ  lift  our  Bible  out  of  the 
company  of  all  books  that  know  not  the  Christ? 


Chapter  VI 


THE  SCIENTIFIC  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

To  be  understood  the  Bible  must  be  studied.  No  doubt 
the  church,  through  her  teaching,  is  able  to  bring  home 
the  essential  message  of  the  Bible  even  to  the  unlearned. 
But  the  Bible  as  ancient  literature,  the  source-book  and 
sacred  canon  of  Christianity,  presents  itself  to  us  as  a 
vast  field  for  study  and  research.  Because  of  its  incom¬ 
parable  influence  in  the  life  of  mankind  it  challenges  the 
attention  of  all  thoughtful  men.  And,  in  fact,  no  other 
book  is  the  object  of  so  much  earnest  inquiry.  The  Bible 
has  always  been  studied;  at  no  period  have  intelligent 
Christians  utterly  neglected  to  search  the  Scriptures.  But 
not  all  Bible  study  is  of  a  kind,  and  not  all  is  alike  fruitful. 
Each  generation  brings  to  bear  upon  the  study  of  the 
Bible  the  intellectual  resources,  methods  and  standards 
that  pertain  to  the  time.  Ours  is  a  time  in  which  a  wealth 
of  fresh  light  has  been  shed  upon  the  Bible.  The  modern 
era  of  Bible  study  began  more  than  one  hundred  years 
ago,  but  since  some  sixty  years  ago  Biblical  research  has 
advanced  with  remarkable  rapidity  and  in  the  last  decades 
its  results  have  become  widely  popularized.  The  modern 
scientific  study  of  the  Bible  is  characterized  by  a  thor¬ 
oughness  joined  with  a  breadth  of  view  once  quite 
unknown. 

The  breaking  in  of  so  much  fresh  light  has  wonderfully 
enlarged  the  appreciation  of  the  Bible  for  many  people 

C8 


64  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


and  should  naturally  have  been  gratefully  welcomed  by 
all.  But  unhappily  the  modern  scientific  study  of  the 
Bible  has  given  grave  offense  to  many  Christian  people, 
and  the  confidence  of  some  has  been  sorely  shaken.  The 
reason  for  this  distress  is  not  hard  to  discover.  It  lies  in 
the  traditional  view  of  the  nature  and  origin  of  the  Bible. 
Out  of  the  assurance  that  the  Bible  as  a  whole  contained 
the  sure  word  of  God,  the  church,  for  the  most  part,  came 
to  hold  that  the  Book  was  in  every  sense  superhuman  and 
miraculous.  It  was  generally  assumed  that  the  very 
words  of  the  Book  had  been  given  by  direct  inspiration 
and  that  error  of  any  sort  was  thereby  absolutely  ex¬ 
cluded.  The  Bible  was  thought  of  as  a  book  recording 
history  yet  having  no  history,  no  development,  of  its 
own — “an  historical  book  unhistorically  given.”  For  a 
very  long  time  the  great  majority  of  Christian  people 
rested  calmly  in  the  dogma  of  a  strictly  miraculous  Bible. 
At  length,  however,  the  modern  scientific  spirit  began  to 
make  even  the  Bible  an  object  of  inquiry.  When  facts 
pointing  to  the  human  limitations  of  the  Bible  and  its 
genuinely  historical  growth  and  transmission  began  to 
impress  themselves  upon  the  minds  of  observant  readers, 
then  was  born  what  is  known  as  modern  Biblical  criticism. 

Before  inquiring  into  the  special  function  of  Biblical 
criticism  it  will  be  well  to  make  clear  to  ourselves  the 
nature  and  function  of  criticism  in  general.  Criticism  is 
the  act  of  distinguishing  things  that  differ,  especially  of 
separating  the  true  from  the  false.  As  applied  to  art  and 
literature,  it  aims  to  distinguish  qualities  and  estimate 
values.  As  applied  to  history,  it  seeks,  by  means  of  an 
intelligent  weighing  of  evidence,  to  separate  between  the 
true  and  the  false  in  tradition  and  testimony,  so  that  we 
may  see  past  events  as  they  actually  were.  The  term 


THE  SCIENTIFIC  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE  65 


criticism  does  not  necessarily  imply  harsh  or  unfavorable 
judgment;  this  is  a  secondary  and  restricted  use  of  the 
term.  The  primary  and  essential  aim  of  criticism  is  a 
just  appreciation. 

As  applied  to  the  Bible  the  function  of  criticism  is  to 
discover  what  may  be  known  concerning  its  historical  and 
literary  relations.  The  aim  of  Biblical  criticism  is  (nega¬ 
tively)  to  remove  false  notions  respecting  the  Bible  and 
(positively)  to  obtain  correct  views  of  the  Bible.  It  seeks 
to  see  the  Bible  as  it  is  and  to  understand  the  process  by 
which  it  came  to  be  what  it  is.  It  would  let  the  Bible 
speak  for  itself.  Criticism  as  such  neither  denies  nor 
affirms  that  the  message  of  the  Bible  is  from  God;  for 
religious  appreciation  is  a  matter  that  lies  beyond  the 
scope  of  mere  science.  It  belongs  to  the  realm  of  spiritual 
intuition.  Biblical  criticism  has  to  do  with  the  natural  or 
human  aspects  of  the  Bible,  not  with  the  question  of  the 
eternal  value  of  its  religious  testimony.  It  assumes  that 
these  writings,  whatever  may  be  their  heavenly  signifi¬ 
cance,  have  a  genuinely  human  history  and  therefore  may 
be  studied  as  human  documents.  And  they  may  be 
studied  just  as  scientifically  and  freely  by  those  who  ac¬ 
cept  the  religion  of  the  Bible  as  by  those  who  deny  it 

‘‘But,”  some  earnest  Christians  are  still  objecting, 
“why  criticize?  Why  not  take  the  Bible  just  as  it  is?” 
The  obvious  answer  is  another  question :  Just  what  is  the 
Bible?  Now  it  is  the  sole  function  of  criticism  to  deter¬ 
mine  just  what  the  Bible  is. 

The  right  of  criticism  cannot  possibly  be  questioned, 
except  upon  the  presupposition  that  the  Bible  is  not  only 
a  miraculous  book,  but  also  is  somehow  miraculously  pro¬ 
tected  against  non-understanding  and  misunderstanding. 
But  an  absolute  denial  of  the  right  to  the  critical  study  of 


66  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


the  Bible  is  almost  unknown.  It  is,  however,  not  uncom¬ 
mon  for  conservative  Christians  to  acknowledge  the  right 
of  what  they  call  “constructive  criticism”  while  they  con¬ 
demn  what  they  call  “destructive  criticism.”  But  in  this 
view  there  is  generally  some  confusion  of  thought.  No 
genuine  criticism  tends  to  be  destructive  of  anything  but 
error,  and  all  genuine  criticism  really  prepares  the  way 
for  positive  construction.  Criticism  is  not  the  advocate 
of  unbelief ;  it  does  not  represent  the  spirit  of  destruction; 
it  is  simply  the  search  for  reality.  It  is  false  to  assume 
that  whenever  criticism  alters  a  traditional  view,  then  it 
is  destructive.  For  age  lends  no  sanctity  to  error.  People 
have  been  troubled  especially  by  the  arguments  against 
the  tradition  as  to  the  authorship  of  certain  books;  but 
their  reasoning  here  is  wholly  unsound.  It  is,  for  ex¬ 
ample,  obviously  unreasonable  to  assume  that  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  if  written  by  Paul,  is  worthy  of  all  con¬ 
fidence,  but  if  the  work  of  an  unknown  hand,  loses  its 
value  for  faith.  It  is  a  fatal  error  to  regard  questions  of 
authorship  and  other  such  matters  as  if  they  were  essen¬ 
tial  to  the  faith.  The  revelational  value  of  the  Scriptures 
is  evidenced  solely  by  their  power  to  help  us  to  a  conscious 
and  saving  fellowship  with  the  living  God.  If  our  con¬ 
fidence  in  the  Biblical  testimony  must  wait  until  historical 
research  has  settled  every  doubtful  question  of  authorship 
and  dates  and  has  proved  that  there  are  no  historical 
errors  in  the  Bible,  then  faith  never  can  be  secure.  We 
must  have  a  more  direct  certainty :  the  testimony  of  Bibli¬ 
cal  witnesses  through  the  living  voice  of  the  church  to-day 
challenges  our  faith,  and  our  experience  of  the  promised 
grace  confirms  it.  It  is  necessary  that  our  “faith  should 
not  stand  in  the  wisdom  of  men,  but  in  the  power  of 
God.” 


THE  SCIENTIFIC  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE  67 

I  have  a  life  with  Christ  to  live. 

But,  ere  I  live  it,  must  I  wait 
Till  learning  can  clear  answer  give 
Of  this  or  that  book’s  date? 

I  have  a  life  in  Christ  to  live, 

I  have  a  death  in  Christ  to  die ; — 

And  must  I  wait  till  science  give 
All  doubts  a  full  reply? 

Nay  rather,  while  the  sea  of  doubt 
Is  raging  wildly  round  about. 

Questioning  of  life  and  death  and  sin. 

Let  me  but  creep  within 
Thy  fold,  O  Christ,  and  at  thy  feet 
Take  but  the  lowest  seat, 

And  hear  Thine  awful  voice  repeat 
In  gentlest  accents,  heavenly  sweet, 

Come  unto  Me,  and  rest; 

Believe  Me,  and  be  blest. 

J.  C.  Shairp. 

It  would  be  futile  to  attempt  to  close  the  Bible  to  his¬ 
torical  and  philological  research,  and  certainly  to  do  so 
would  be  injurious  to  faith.  Those  who  attempt  this 
thing  should  have  a  care  lest  they  “be  found  to  be  fighting 
even  against  God.”  The  Bible  is,  at  all  events,  far  too 
important  a  heritage  of  antiquity  to  escape  the  thorough 
scrutiny  of  scholars.  Some,  perhaps,  will  study  it  irrev¬ 
erently,  but  this  is  no  reason  why  the  way  should  not  be 
kept  absolutely  open  to  free  research.  “Nothing  that 
keeps  thought  out  is  safe  from  thought.”  The  only 
answer  to  vicious  or  false  criticism  is  sound  and  true 
criticism.  To  prohibit  criticism  is  morally  and  spiritually 
perilous  if  not  even  deadly. 


68  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Yet  it  must  be  clearly  observed  that  there  is  such  a 
thing  as  destructive  criticism.  But  it  is  never  mere  criti¬ 
cism  as  such  that  is  destructive,  but  only  criticism  •when 
linked,  as  sometimes  it  is,  with  an  unbelieving  prejudice, 
or  with  a  spirit  of  opposition  to  the  truth.  The  injurious 
moments  in  criticism  always  come  from  the  philosophical 
or  dogmatic  theory  that  controls  it.  Even  honest  criti¬ 
cism  can  and  does  make  mistakes,  and  these  mistakes  may 
be  disturbing  factors  for  a  time;  but  honest  criticism 
carries  its  own  antidote  within  itself. 

The  task  of  Biblical  criticism  is  threefold:  textual, 
historico-literary,  and  historical. 

(1)  Textual  criticism  is  the  task  of  ascertaining,  as 
nearly  as  possible,  the  original  text  or  wording  of  a  writ¬ 
ing.  /  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  interpretation  of  the 
text,  except  in  so  far  as  the  apparent  sense  of  a  passage 
may  afford  reasons  for  judging  of  the  wording  at  points 
where  the  traditional  text  is  uncertain.  No  task  could  be 
more  sharply  limited  than  this.  It  is,  however,  a  very 
laborious  and  intricate  task.  It  involves  the  comparison 
and  due  appraisal  of  all  the  readings  of  all  known  manu¬ 
scripts  of  the  Bible;  the  use  of  all  ancient  versions  for 
the  light  they  may  throw  upon  the  readings  in  the  origi¬ 
nal  ;  and  the  comparison  of  all  quotations  from  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  found  in  the  writings  of  the  Church  Fathers.  The 
inquiry  concerning  the  correct  text  of  the  Scriptures  was 
the  earliest  form  of  Biblical  criticism  to  be  developed. 
Its  need  was  evident  to  all  scholarly  investigators.  When 
ancient  manuscripts  were  compared,  variations  in  the  text 
appeared,  and  the  task  inevitably  suggested  itself  of  deter¬ 
mining  by  comparison  of  the  manuscripts,  and  by  other 
evidences,  which  of  the  several  readings  might  be  the 
original  one  And  yet  when  Bengel,  the  father  of  textual 


THE  SCIENTIFIC  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE  69 


criticism,  began  his  labors  in  this  field,  the  people  and  the 
clergy  were  sorely  disturbed  over  this  “tampering  with 
God’s  word.”  God  must — so  they  claimed- — have  pro-* 
tected  the  Bible  from  every  error  even  in  its  transmission, 
Nevertheless,  here  were  the  various  readings.  They  de^ 
manded  examination  and,  wherever  possible,  correction. 
The  need  was  so  obvious  that  in  course  of  time  the  work 
of  textual  criticism  won  universal  recognition. 

(2) jThe  next  form  of  criticism  is  the  historico-literary, 
commonly  called  the  “higher  criticism,”  to  distinguish  it 
from  the  textual  or  “lower  criticism.”  The  task  of  the 
“higher  criticism”  is  even  more  complex  and  difficult 
than  that  of  textual  criticism.  It  is  to  discover  whatever 
may  be  known  concerning  the  origin  of  the  several  writ¬ 
ings.  The  inquiry  takes  up  such  questions  as  the  follow¬ 
ing:  Who  wrote  a  given  book?  For  what  readers? 
When  ?  Why  ?jUnder  what  conditions  and  circumstances  ? 
Is  the  book  a  unity  in  composition  and  authorship  ?  What 
were  the  sources  of  the  materials  used  in  the  book?  Did 
the  author  make  use  of  documents  in  composing  his  book? 
If  so,  what  account  may  be  given  of  these  documents? 
These  are,  perhaps,  the  most  important  questions  that 
“higher  criticism”  is  called  upon  to  answer.  Naturally 
this  form  of  criticism  was  more  startling  than  the  textual, 
yet  happily  even  this  line  of  inquiry  is  now  justified,  in 
principle  at  least,  by  most  of  the  Christian  people.  It 
no  longer  seems  like  “infidelity”  when  we  hear  of  the 
post-Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  composite 
character  of  the  book  of  Isaiah,  and  the  various  theories 
of  the  authorship  of  our  Gospels. 

(3) j  Historical  criticism  as  applied  to  the  Bible  is  th^ 
inquiry  into  the  value  of  the  historical  records  contained 
in  the  Bible  itself.  To  many  Christians  the  smallest 


70  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


doubt  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  Bible  in  every  detail 
seems  like  a  denial  of  the  whole  Bible.  Even  in  our  own 
day  we  can  sometimes  hear  the  statement  that  unless  we 
can  trust  the  Bible  in  every  particular,  we  cannot  be  sure 
of  it  in  any.  Now,  obviously,  this  is  a  most  unnecessary 
assumption.  We  deal  so  with  no  other  book  and  certainly 
with  no  living  person.  We  have  no  warrant  for  assuming 
that  God  must  have  given  us  a  book  free  from  every 
natural  limitation  of  human  minds.  And  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  examination  shows  that  Biblical  writers  were  not 
free  from  the  imperfections  of  knowledge  and  memory 
that  are  common  to  men.  The  value  of  the  Bible  for 
faith  does  not  consist  in  its  formal  correctness,  but  in  the 
fact  that  it  brings  us  into  sure  and  conscious  fellowship 
with  God. 

In  the  last  seventy-five  years,  and  especially  in  the  last 
thirty,  the  science  of  archseolog}-"  and  the  researches  of 
historians  have  shed  many  a  light  upon  Bible  history. 
People  often  speak  of  the  spade  as  ^‘confirming  the  Bible.” 
Often,  however,  archaeology  and  extra-Biblical  history 
correct  rather  than  confirm  the  Biblical  tradition.  As  a 
book  of  religion,  the  Bible  can  never  be  confirmed  by 
adducing  proof  of  its  formal  accuracy;  the  only  confirma¬ 
tion  of  a  book  of  religion  is  to  be  found  in  the  experience 
of  its  power  to  establish  our  fellowship  with  God.  In 
matters  of  world-knowledge  the  writers  of  our  Bible  ap¬ 
pear  simply  as  children  of  their  times ;  their  special 
significance  for  us  lies  in  this :  they  knew  God. 

.  The  modern  scientific  study  of  the  Bible  is,  broadly 
speaking,  that  study  which  uses  the  best  scientific  methods 
of  the  age  in  the  attempt  to  understand  the  Bible  in  all 
its  aspects  and  relations.  The  immense  modern  progress 
in  two  fields  has  almost  revolutionized  the  scientific  side 


THE  SCIENTIFIC  STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE  71 


of  our  relation  to  the  Bible.  Advances  in  archaeology 
and  modern  psychological  methods  of  study  have  com¬ 
bined  to  make  the  reading  of  the  Bible  incomparably  more 
lively  and  intelligent  than  was  possible  in  earlier  times. 
Yet  the  religious  truth  of  the  Bible  could  never  be  wholly 
obscured ;  it  has  shone  forth  with  greater  or  less  clearness 
in  every  age.  The  modern  Bible  student  reads  the  Bible 
in  the  light  of  its  own  history  and  of  the  general  history 
of  its  times  and  with  the  application  of  a  sane  psycho¬ 
logical  and  historical  imagination;  but  he  also  reads  it, 
if  he  has  an  earnest  spirit,  with  the  desire  to  know  what 
these  ancient  writings  have  to  say  for  all  times. 


PART  II:  THE  BIBLE  IN  THE  MAKING 


PART  II:  THE  BIBLE  IN 
THE  MAKING 

Chapter  VII 

THE  BIBLE  A  GROWTH 

Time  was  when  as  yet  there  was  no  Bible.  Thenj 
after  a  process  covering  many  centuries,  men  had  at  last 
a  completed  Bible.  We  have  the  task  in  this  part  of  our 
study  of  sketching  the  growth  of  the  Bible.  It  is  only 
the  broader  outlines  of  the  history  of  the  growing  Bible 
that  can  be  offered  here.  The  main  lines  of  development 
will  be  indicated  and  the  reader  who  is  interested  in  the 
details  of  the  problem  can  push  his  inquiries  farther,  and 
he  will  be  amply  rewarded  for  his  pains.  Every  earnest 
student  of  the  Bible  needs  to  have  a  clear,  even  if  rather 
general,  knowledge  of  how  the  Bible  came  to  be. 

Now  the  Bible  did  really  grow.  God  could  have  given 
the  world  a  finished  Bible  all  at  once  directly  from 
heaven,  or  he  could  have  given  it — still  in  the  same 
miraculous  manner — piece  by  piece.  Such  a  mechanical 
process,  however,  could  not  be  called  growth.  The  Bible 
grew  in  the  sense  of  a  growth  in  organic  relation  with 
the  life  of  men.  It  is  an  outgrowth  of  historical  move¬ 
ments.  God’s  revelation  of  himself  is  interwoven  in  his¬ 
tory,  and  so  also  the  literary  witness  to  the  ways  of  God 
jvith  men  was  an  outgrowth  of  history. 

The  process  of  the  Bible’s  becoming  is  twofold.  First, 

76 


76  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

there  is  a  growth  of  a  literature;  secondly,  there  is  the 
sifting  of  that  literature  and  the  recognition  of  certain 
portions  of  it  as  divinely  authoritative.  We  have  first 
the  writings  and  afterward  the  canonization  of  the 
writings. 

The  literature  of  the  Bible  grew  just  as  any  other 
literature  grows.  That  it  is  believed  to  embody  a  divine 
revelation  makes  no  difference  in  this  respect.  The  litera¬ 
ture  was  the  spontaneous  outgrowth  of  the  life  of  the 
religious  community.  The  several  writings  were  put 
forth  in  the  first  instance  with  no  thought  of  their  form¬ 
ing  parts  of  a  future  Bible.  They  were  written  to  serve 
the  immediate  interests  of  the  people.  A  psalmist  wrote 
down  his  psalm,  a  prophet  recorded  his  sermon,  an  evan¬ 
gelist  wrote  of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Christ,  an  apostle 
wrote  his  letters  of  instruction  to  the  churches,  each  be¬ 
cause  of  an  immediate  need  and  use  that  was  to  be  served. 

The  Bible  is  a  growth  not  merely  in  the  sense  that 
the  hooks  sprang  up  out  of  the  life  of  the  people  at  a 
given  time,  but  also  in  the  still  deeper  sense  that  the  ideas 
of  the  books  had  a  history  and  development  before  their 
embodiment  in  a  book.  This  development  of  the  ideas 
began,  as  a  rule,  long  before  the  writing  of  a  given  book. 
Again,  a  number  of  the  books  of  the  Bible  are  a  growth 
in  the  further  sense  that  they  are  collections  or  compila¬ 
tions,  or  in  some  cases  redactions,  of  older  writings.  The 
Psalter,  for  example,  is  the  hymn-book  of  ancient  Israel 
and  as  such  it  represents  the  growth  of  centuries.  The 
most  important  of  the  historical  books  are  compilations 
and  redactions  of  older  documents  and  sources. 

Since  the  Bible  grew  out  of  the  life  of  a  people,  and 
since  the  life  of  the  people  itself  is  largely  conditioned  by 
its  physical  situation  and  surroundings  and  by  its  con- 


THE  BIBLE  A  GROWTH 


77 


tact  with  other  peoples,  its  writings  must  show  evidences 
of  all  these  manifold  relations.  He  who  studies  the 
growth  of  the  Bible  should  take  into  account  the  history 
of  the  people  from  which  it  sprang.  The  literature  is 
really  an  organic  part  of  the  whole  life  of  the  people,  and 
the  life  of  the  people  is  in  no  small  measure  determined 
by  the  land  in  which  they  live. 

No  book  of  the  Bible,  however  rich  in  divine  truth, 
was  called  Holy  Scripture  when  first  written;  its  recog¬ 
nition  as  such  came  only  after  long  use  had  established 
it  in  the  veneration  of  the  people.  The  growth  of  the 
Bible  as  a  collection  of  writings  of  acknowledged  author¬ 
ity  is,  therefore,  an  important  part  of  our  study.  Books 
are  written  for  the  community;  they  are  welcomed  by 
the  community;  and  those  writings  which  prove  most 
satisfying  continue  in  use  and  are  at  last  officially  ac¬ 
cepted  as  Holy  Scripture — the  canon  of  Scripture  is 
fixed. 


Chapter  VIII 

THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE 


The  Old  Testament  is  the  chief  literary  expression  of 
the  life  of  the  Hebrew  people  in  their  relation  to  Jehovah. 
It  is  a  national  literature.  The  New  Testament,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  the  literary  outgrowth  of  the  Messianic 
faith  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  and  the  early  preaching  of 
that  faith.  As  such,  the  New  Testament  is  not  national 
but  universal.  Nevertheless,  even  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  were  all — Luke  alone  excepted — Hebrews. 
Humanly  speaking,  our  Bible  is  the  product  of  the 

Hebrew  race.  The  people  of  Israel  felt  themselves  to 

• 

be  the  chosen  people  and,  indeed,  doubtless  they  were  a 
chosen  people — chosen  to  accomplish  a  supreme  service 
for  the  whole  world.  That  God  cared  for  them  to  the 
exclusion  of  other  races,  the  New  Testament  forbids  us 
to  believe.  Yet  it  is  manifest  that  the  prevailing  Jewish 
conception  of  God’s  purpose  for  mankind  was  narrow 
and  selfish.  This  view,  however,  is  not  that  of  their 
greatest  prophets.  These  had  a  universal  outlook  and 
taught  that  God  was  the  God  of  all  men.  But  the  people 
as  a  whole  never  rose  to  that  height;  and  because  of 
their  lower  and  narrower  thought  of  the  purpose  of  God, 
the  people  of  Israel,  for  the  most  part,  rejected  Jesus  as 
Messiah.  Yet  we  must  not  fail  to  perceive  the  sig¬ 
nificance  of  the  fact  that  it  was  from  Israel  that  the  first 
disciples  of  Jesus  were  gathered  and  it  was  Israelites  that 
preached  the  gospel  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  of  the  whole 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE  79 

world.  And  so  we  have  before  us  in  our  Bible  a  litera¬ 
ture  produced  by  Hebrews ;  and  this  collection  of  writings 
by  Hebrews  has  strangely  enough  become  “the  book  of 
mankind.” 

Now,  in  order  to  get  the  fullest  understanding  of  this 
most  broadly  human  of  all  books,  we  need  to  know  the 
people  from  which  it  sprang;  and  in  order  to  know  the 
people,  we  need  to  know  their  land.  The  divine  message 
of  the  Bible  came  to  us  through  the  medium  of  a  certain 
people.  It  was  a  people  which  would  scarcely  have  made 
for  itself  a  very  great  name  among  the  nations  but  for 
its  spiritual  history  and  the  spiritual  influence  that  has 
gone  out  from  it.  Israel  was  the  only  nation  of  antiquity 
that  learned  the  worship  of  the  one  universal  God.  Hence 
the  universal  significance  of  its  history.  Out  of  Israel 
came  Jesus  Christ.  The  essence  of  the  Bible’s  message 
is  for  all  nations  and  individuals,  but  the  form  of  that 
message  was  shaped  and  conditioned  by  the  characteris¬ 
tics  and  vicissitudes  of  the  Hebrew  people,  and  these  in 
turn  were  in  no  small  measure  conditioned  by  the  land 
in  which  they  dwelt. 

Israel  was  called  by  the  prophets  “Jehovah’s  peculiar 
people,”  that  is,  the  people  of  Jehovah’s  own  possession. 
Hence  both  prophets  and  priests  warned  the  people  to 
keep  themselves  separate  from  other  nations.  Now  this 
emphasis  upon  the  duty  of  separateness  helped  to  make 
the  people  of  Israel  peculiar  in  another  sense  of  the  word, 
that  is,  to  make  them  unlike  other  nations.  Physical  isola¬ 
tion  was,  of  course,  impossible.  In  fact,  the  people  of 
northern  Palestine  were  thrown  into  contact  with  other 
nations  in  an  unusual  degree.  Northern  Palestine  lay  in 
the  direct  line  of  the  great  caravan  routes  between  many 
of  the  principal  trading  nations  of  antiquity — Egypt, 


80  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Syria,  Phoenicia,  Assyria.  It  was  therefore  aptly  styled 
^'Galilee  of  the  nations.”  The  full  recognition  of  this 
condition  of  life  in  this  part  of  the  country  will  greatly 
aid  in  the  understanding  of  the  social  and  the  religious 
history  of  the  Northern  tribes.  The  intermingling  of 
the  people  resulted  in  a  rather  mixed  race  and  in  a  far 
more  extensive  following  of  the  strange  gods  and  customs 
than  was  the  case  with  the  Southern  Kingdom  of  Judah. 

The  people  of  Southern  Palestine  were  able  to  main¬ 
tain  a  much  greater  degree  of  separateness  from  other 
nations  than  was  possible  in  the  North.  Jerusalem  was 
a  city  well  surrounded  by  hills.  Few  great  cities  of  the 
world  have  been  so  well  protected  by  natural  barriers  or 
have  lain  so  distinctly  outside  the  zones  of  the  great 
courses  of  commerce  and  travel.  To  the  south  of  the 
city  lies  *‘the  hill  country  of  Judea”  extending  as  far 
south  as  the  desert.  On  the  southeast  the  hills  of  Judea 
reach  to  the  border  of  Arabah,  a  broad,  shallow,  sandy 
valley,  the  continuation  of  the  great  rift  which  affords 
the  bed  for  the  Jordan  River  and  the  Dead  Sea.  On  the 
east  lie  the  Dead  Sea,  flanked  by  steep  hills,  and  the  lower 
Jordan  Valley.  The  fords  of  the  lower  Jordan  are  few 
and  easily  defended.  Moreover,  beyond  the  Jordan  and 
the  Dead  Sea  there  is  but  a  small  habitable  territory,  and 
beyond  this  lies  the  great  desert  of  Syria  and  Arabia. 
In  Old  Testament  times  this  small  habitable  country 
lying  to  the  east  was  held  by  such  tribes  as  the  Am¬ 
monites,  Moabites  and  Edomites,  who  seldom  were  strong 
enough  seriously  to  disturb  the  people  of  Judah.  To  the 
southwest  and  west  of  Jerusalem  the  hills  extend  far 
enough  to  have  caused  the  caravans  moving  to  and  from 
Egypt  to  keep  their  main  course  at  a  distance  from  the 
city;  only  offshoots  of  the  caravans  would  come  to  Jeru- 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE 


81 


Salem.  There  were,  of  course,  a  few  tolerably  good 
roads  leading  to  and  from  Jerusalem,  especially  the  Beth¬ 
lehem  road  on  the  south,  the  Jericho  road  on  the  east, 
the  Joppa  road  leading  to  the  Sea,  and  on  the  north  a 
road  which  branched  in  several  directions.  And  so,  in 
spite  of  her  size  and  importance,  Jerusalem  was  in  an 
uncommon  degree  separated  from  intercourse  from  for¬ 
eign  peoples.  But  it  was  the  religious  teaching  and 
policy  that  kept  the  people  separate  even  more  than  their 
geographical  situation.  Separateness  was  inculcated  as 
a  religious  duty. 

There  was  therefore  a  decided  difference  between  the 
religious  development  of  “Israel”  (the  Northern  King¬ 
dom)  and  of  “Judah”  (the  Southern  Kingdom).  It 
would,  however,  be  possible  to  exaggerate  the  difference. 
In  both  branches  of  the  nation  Jehovah  was  regarded  as 
the  God  of  Israel ;  but  also  in  both  kingdoms  the  worship 
of  strange  gods  was  much  practised.  In  the  Northern 
Kingdom,  however,  this  evil  was  far  more  prevalent  than 
in  Judah.  All  through  their  history  both  branches  of 
the  people  of  Israel  were  influenced  in  varying  degrees 
by  the  nations  and  tribes  with  which  they  came  in  con¬ 
tact.  The  national  development  of  Northern  Israel  came 
to  an  end  with  the  fall  of  Samaria  and  the  effectual 
scattering  of  the  people  in  721  B.  C.  The  Southern 
Kingdom  fared  very  differently.  Although  it  endured  as 
a  kingdom  only  until  the  Babylonian  Captivity,  the  peo¬ 
ple  were  able  to  maintain  a  strong  national  spirit  even  in 
the  Exile  (from  586  to  536  B.  C.),  and  after  their  return 
to  their  land  they  developed  a  sense  of  unity  and  divine 
vocation  as  a  people  unparalleled  in  history.  Even  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  70  A.  D.  and  the  loss  of  their 
country  did  not  break  their  national  spirit. 


82  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Israel’s  religion,  then,  was  an  historical  development. 
Now  the  thought  of  the  development  or  evolution  of  the 
religion  of  Israel  does  not  signify  a  denial  of  the  self¬ 
revelation  of  God  as  its  foundation  and  source.  All 
human  life,  religion  included,  is  subject  to  the  general 
law  of  development.  This  law,  however,  does  not  imply 
ihe  inevitableness  of  improvement;  it  means  only  that 
everything  is  under  the  law  of  causal  continuity.  Thus 
religion  develops  in  its  forms  and  in  its  ideal  content.  But 
while  recognizing  the  law  of  continuity  as  holding  in  the 
domain  of  religion,  we  may  also  be  fully  persuaded  that 
religion  is  grounded  in  the  living  God  and  his  positive 
relations  with  men.  We  shall  do  well  to  refuse  to  put 
evolution  in  the  place  of  the  living  God.  Genuine  religion 
neither  begins  nor  grows  of  itself ;  its  root  is  in  God.  Yet 
all  religion,  even  the  highest,  does  grow,  and  the  Biblical 
religion,  not  less  than  any  other,  has  had  its  development. 
The  only  question  of  faith  involved  in  the  inquiry  as  to 
the  growth  of  Biblical  religion  is  this :  Was  there  in  the 
religion  of  Israel  a  real,  though  imperfect  but  growing 
knowledge  of  the  true  God,  such  a  knowledge  as  could 
form  the  fitting  background  for  the  glory  of  the  supreme 
revelation  in  Jesus  Christ?  Real  religion  is  grounded  in 
what  God  does,  not  in  what  man  fancies.  But  there  is  a 
progressiveness  in  the  human  appropriation  and  under¬ 
standing  of  God’s  ways  with  men.  The  recognition  of 
the  development  of  religion  does  not  make  religion  the 
v/ork  of  man. 

To  understand  the  Bible  is  to  understand  the  religion 
of  the  Bible.  Whatever,  then,  will  throw  light  upon  the 
religion  of  the  Bible  is  to  be  seized  upon  and  utilized  in 
our  study.  We  are  to  ask  ourselves :  What  kinds  of 
knowledge  are  calculated  to  help  us  to  understand  the 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE 


88 


Bible?  And,  How  shall  we  acquire  and  use  these  “aux¬ 
iliary  sciences”?  There  are  many  such — philology,  his¬ 
tory,  archaeology,  race  psychology,  and  many  more. 
We  are  at  the  present  moment  concerned  with  one  of  the 
most  important  of  them — Biblical  geography.  Ernest 
Renan  called  the  land  of  Palestine  “the  fifth  Gospel.” 
But  the  land  of  Palestine  throws  light  not  only  upon  the 
life  of  Christ  but  upon  the  whole  life  of  the  people  of 
Israel. 

There  is  a  popular  interest  in  Biblical  geography  which, 
though  sound  and  good  as  far  as  it  goes,  contributes  little 
to  our  understanding  of  the  Bible.  It  is  not  enough  that 
our  fancy  should  dwell  fondly  upon  the  local  associations 
of  Bible  history  and  we  be  able,  for  example,  to  say, 
“Here  is  Carmel  where  Elijah  slew  the  priests  of  Baal, 
or  here  is  Dothan  where  Joseph  found  his  brethren  feed¬ 
ing  their  flocks,  or  here  is  the  Sea  of  Galilee  where  Jesus 
taught.”  Every  place  connected  with  Bible  history,  espe¬ 
cially  with  the  life  of  our  Lord,  is  naturally  the  object  of 
a  certain  hallowed  interest.  All  this,  of  course,  is  good, 
but  the  genuine  student  of  the  Bible  must  go  further  and 
deeper.  He  asks :  How  can  the  knowledge  of  Bible  lands 
help  me  to  understand  the  religious  history  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament? 

The  term  “Bible  lands”  should  not  be  understood  as 
including  all  countries  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  but  only 
such  as  have  had  some  direct  part  in  shaping  Bible  his¬ 
tory.  The  Biblical  world  in  that  wider  sense  extended 
from  Persia  and  the  lands  of  the  Tigris-Euphrates  Valley 
in  the  East  to  Tartessus  (Tarshish)  in  Spain  in  the 
West;  from  Ethiopia  in  the  South  to  the  Euxine  or 
Black  Sea  in  the  North.  Bible  lands  in  the  restricted 
sense  of  the  term  are  Palestine  as  the  home  of  the 


84  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Hebrews  and  also  Mesopotamia,  Egypt,  the  Peninsula  of 
Sinai,  Syria,  Phoenicia,  Babylonia,  Persia,  and,  finally, 
the  lands  of  Paul’s  missionary  labors.  Most  of  the  lands 
of  the  Biblical  world  lay  about  the  Mediterranean  (or 
Great)  Sea;  even  those  that  were  most  remote  had  ex¬ 
tensive  commercial  relations  with  the  Mediterranean 
lands.  It  is  an  interesting  and  significant  fact  that  the 
most  nearly  central  of  all  lands  shown  on  the  map  of  the 
Biblical  world  is  Palestine.  Indeed,  if  we  look  at  a 
modern  map  embracing  the  three  continents  of  the  Old 
World,  no  other  country  seems  quite  so  central  as 
Palestine.  It  is  in  this  land  that  Israel’s  spiritual  develop¬ 
ment  chiefly  took  place;  and  yet  there  was  a  most  im¬ 
portant  history  before  they  came  into  Palestine,  and  also 
there  were  exceedingly  important  influences  from  the 
later  experiences  of  the  Jews  in  the  Babylonian  Exile  and 
in  the  contact  of  many  of  them  with  the  Persians.  When 
we  take  into  account  both  the  central  location  of  the 
people  and  their  studied  aloofness,  we  shall  be  prepared  to 
understand  how  Israel  could  be  at  once  so  broad  and  so 
narrow  in  its  outlook.  It  was  broad  in  its  thought  of 
the  universality  of  God’s  kingdom  and  of  the  oneness  of 
the  human  family,  but  narrow  in  its  conception  of  its 
own  divine  vocation.  In  all  antiquity  the  conception  of 
the  oneness  of  the  human  race  was  declared  nowhere  else 
but  in  Israel.  The  tragedy  of  Israel  was  her  perversion 
of  the  grand  prophetic  vision  of  her  vocation  to  save 
the  whole  world  to  a  thought  of  the  glory  of  her  own 
dominion  over  all  peoples. 

The  Old  Testament  world  was  essentially  an  Afro- 
Asiatic  world.  Israel’s  contact  with  Europe  came  late  in 
her  history,  chiefly  through  the  conquests  of  Alexander 
the  Great  The  Greek  influence  seems  to  have  affected 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE 


85 


the  religious  life  of  the  Jews  but  little  until  after  the 
latest  of  the  Old  Testament  books  was  written.  There¬ 
after  a  commingling  of  Jewish  religious  thought  and 
Greek  philosophy  was  increasingly  manifest.  Naturally 
this  Greek  influence  was  more  pronounced  among  the 
Jews  of  the  Dispersion  than  among  the  Palestinian  Jews, 

The  New  Testament  world  stretches  northward  and 
westward  from  Palestine.  The  East  has  almost  vanished 
from  the  view  of  the  people  of  Israel.  Rome  is  now  the 
mistress  of  the  world;  but  the  ruling  thought  and  the 
dominant  language  of  the  world  are  Greek.  In  spite  of 
the  very  considerable  importance  of  Egypt  and  the  at¬ 
tractions  of  Alexandria  both  for  Greeks  and  for  Jews, 
we  read  of  no  apostolic  mission  there. 

Now  the  religious  history  of  the  Hebrews  did  not 
begin  with  Moses  nor  did  it  end  with  him.  According 
to  Biblical  tradition,  the  worship  of  Jehovah  (or  Jahweh) 
was  already  practised  in  the  time  of  Abraham  and  we 
may  be  sure  it  was  practised  in  the  time  of  Moses.  Yet 
we  cannot  affirm  that  even  at  the  time  of  Moses  the 
religion  of  Israel  had  become  a  pure  monotheism.  It  was 
first,  doubtless,  a  monolatry ;  and  it  did  not  become  a  pure 
monotheism  until  long  after  Moses’  time.  There  is, 
perhaps,  no  problem  in  the  history  of  religion  more 
interesting  than  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  Hebrew 
monotheism.  Some  hold  that  the  desert  life  suggested 
monotheistic  worship.  It  has  even  been  said  that  al5 
monotheism  has  sprung  up  in  the  desert.  In  answer  to 
this  assertion,  it  should  be  stated  that  ancient  history 
shows  but  one  perfectly  clear  monotheism,  namely,  that 
of  Israel.  Zoroastrianism,  at  its  best,  was  almost  a  pure 
monotheism,  but  it  was  characterized  by  an  inherent  dual- 
istic  tendency,  and  this  hindered  the  development  of  true 


86  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

monotheism.  Besides,  Zoroastrianism  did  not  spring  up 
in  what  one  would  call  a  desert  country.  And  as  for 
Mohammedanism,  its  monotheism  was  plainly  borrowed 
from  that  of  the  Old  Testament.  Some  scholars  speak 
of  “a  Semitic  genius  for  monotheism” ;  but  most  Semitic 
peoples  were  not  monotheistic,  though  some  of  them  were 
monolatrous.  Monotheism  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  the 
natural  product  of  the  geographical  influences  of  the  life 
of  the  desert.  So  much,  however,  is  to  be  frankly  recog¬ 
nized  :  a  nomadic  tribal  life  tends  to  the  thought  of  a  tribal 
deity  and  so  to  a  pretty  strict  monolatry,  that  is,  the  wor¬ 
ship  of  one  god  without  the  denial  of  the  existence  of 
other  gods.  The  maintenance  of  monolatry  seems  to  be 
the  normal  prerequisite  for  the  rise  of  monotheism.  At 
all  events,  the  Israelites  were  believers  in  the  duty  of  wor¬ 
shipping  one  God  alone  long  before  they  came  to  see  that 
there  was  but  one  God.  From  the  desert  the  Israelites 
brought  a  monolatry.  through  long  conflicts  this  finally 
rose  to  the  heights  of  a  pure  monotheism.  Moses  in  the 
land  of  Midian  became  tremendously  convinced  of  the 
duty  of  Israel  to  worship  the  God  of  Israel,  Jahweh.  He 
goes  back  into  Egypt,  from  whence  he  had  fled,  and  leads 
forth  the  people  under  this  standard  and  watchword :  “Let 
us  go  forth  that  we  may  worship  our  God,  the  God  of  our 
fathers,  even  Jahweh.”  In  Egypt  it  seems  that  as  a 
people  they  had  fallen  into  the  worship  of  many  gods, 
chiefly  the  gods  of  the  Egyptians. 

The  influence  of  the  forty  years  of  the  wilderness  on 
Israel’s  life  was  great  in  two  regards :  the  people  grew 
physically  strong  and  valiant;  and  they  became  fairly 
united  in  their  worship  of  Jahweh.  Although  not  yet 
brought  to  the  conception  of  the  oneness  of  Deity,  they 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE  87 

were  brought  to  a  concentrated  worship  of  the  God  of 
Israel. 

Palestine,  as  compared  with  the  Wilderness  of  Sinai, 
might  well  be  described  as  “a  land  flowing  with  milk  and 
honey.”  Its  boundaries  cannot  be  sharply  defined.  Gen¬ 
erally,  however,  its  recognized  limits  were  as  follows :  on 
the  west  the  Mediterranean  Sea ;  on  the  east  the  Arabian 
(or  Syrian)  Desert;  on  the  south  the  indefinite  line  of 
hills  descending  to  the  desert;  on  the  north  the  southern 
slope  of  Mt.  Hermon  and  the  point  at  which  the  course 
of  the  Litany  (or  Leontes)  River  turns  abruptly  to  flow 
westward  into  the  Mediterranean;  but  the  line  of  division 
from  that  point  to  the  sea  must  be  so  drawn  as  to  leave 
Tyre  within  the  bounds  of  Phoenicia.  In  the  period  of 
Israel’s  greatest  power  the  city  of  Hamath  was  sometimes 
referred  to  as  constituting  the  northern  limit  of  the  land 
of  Israel  just  beyond  the  border.  In  general,  however. 
Israel’s  occupation  of  the  land  did  not  extend  beyond  the 
southern  slope  of  Mt.  Hermon.  In  common  speech  the 
northern  and  southern  limits  were  approximately  indi¬ 
cated  by  the  well-known  phrase,  “from  Dan  to  Beer- 
sheba.”  The  width  of  the  land  is  about  one  hundred 
miles  and  its  length  from  north  to  south  about  one  hun¬ 
dred  and  fifty  miles.  In  size  and  also  in  shape  it  is  not 
unlike  the  State  of  Vermont. 

The  geology  of  Palestine  is  unusually  interesting. 
Until  the  great  volcanic  upheaval  about  the  close  of  the 
Pliocene  period  the  whole  land  was  covered  by  the  waters 
of  the  sea.  That  upheaval  gave  to  the  land  its  chief  per¬ 
manent  characteristics.  The  most  striking  of  these  char¬ 
acteristics  is  the  great  rift  running  north  and  south  from 
the  Lebanons  to  the  Red  Sea,  forming  the  valley  of  the 
Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea,  and  continuing,  though  with 


88  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


a  less  depression,  south  of  the  Dead  Sea  through  the 
Arabah  and  the  Gulf  of  Akabah.  At  the  Dead  Sea  the 
depression  is  the  deepest  on  the  surface  of  the  earth 
(1,292  feet  below  the  level  of  the  Mediterranean).  The 
underlying  rock  is  granite,  but  it  is  little  in  evidence,  being 
for  the  most  part  well  covered  by  red  sandstone  and  the 
still  later  deposits  of  limestone  and  marl.  In  Moab  and 
Edom  the  sandstone  appears  in  abundance  and  sometimes 
in  striking  beauty.  Some  of  the  limestone  of  Palestine, 
especially  that  of  Solomon’s  quarries  in  Jerusalem,  is 
exceptionally  fine.  The  Mediterranean  for  a  long  time 
extended  to  the  very  foot  of  the  mountains  of  the  central 
range.  The  present  coastal  plain  was  produced  in  part  by 
a  gradual  emergence  of  the  land  from  the  sea  and  in  part 
by  the  alluvial  deposits  from  the  mountains.  Along  the 
coast  there  is  also  a  border  of  yellow  sand  brought  in  by 
the  force  of  the  western  winds  from  the  deposits  of  the 
Nile. 

The  physical  geography  of  Palestine  is  very  clearly 
marked.  Four  zones  extend  from  north  to  south  (in  the 
southern  half  of  the  land  it  is  usual,  by  means  of  a  sub- 
division,  to  distinguish  five).  The  four  divisions  are: 
(1)  the  coast  plain;  (2)  the  central  plateau  or  mountain 
range;  (3)  the  Jordan  and  Dead  Sea  valley;  and  (4)  the 
plateau  east  of  the  Jordan.  The  fifth  division  which 
should  be  recognized  in  the  southern  portion  of  the  land 
is  the  Shephelah,  consisting  of  foot-hills  lying  between 
the  Philistine  coast  plain  and  the  more  mountainous 
plateau.  The  coast  plain  is  very  narrow  in  the  north,  but 
in  the  central  and  southern  parts  we  find  the  broader 
plains  of  Sharon  and  Philistia. 

The  central  plateau  is  a  continuation  of  the  Lebanon 
mountains.  The  northern  portion  of  the  plateau  includes 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE 


89 


some  mountains  of  from  3,000  to  4,000  feet  above  sea- 
level.  To  the  southwest  of  this  division  of  Palestine  the 
plateau  stretches  out  into  the  beautiful  and  fertile  plain 
of  Esdraelon.  In  its  central  part,  which  is  the  region  of 
Samaria,  the  hills  are  less  lofty  than  in  the  north,  and, 
gently  rounding  into  the  valleys,  are  tolerably  fertile. 
The  hills  of  Judea,  on  the  other  hand,  though  not  more 
lofty  than  many  in  Samaria,  are  more  rugged  than  those, 
and  far  less  fertile.  In  the  Negeb,  or  South  Country,  the 
hills  are  decidedly  barren. 

The  valley  of  the  Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea  is  far  less 
pleasing  than  one  might  expect.  To  the  geologist,  how¬ 
ever,  its  interest  is  great.  The  Jordan  has  several  sources 
near  Mt.  Hermon.  One  of  these  is  an  abundant  spring 
at  Banias  (the  Caesarea  Philippi  of  New  Testament 
times).  From  Banias,  whose  elevation  is  more  than 
1,000  feet,  the  river  rapidly  descends  to  about  the  level  of 
the  sea  near  Lake  Huleh.  Here  for  a  distance  of  several 
miles  the  stream  is  sluggish — Huleh  is  in  fact  only  the 
widening  of  the  stream  because  of  the  natural  obstruc¬ 
tions  in  the  physical  contour  of  the  country — but  from 
Huleh  to  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  a  distance  of  eleven  miles, 
the  river  plunges  downward  682  feet.  The  Sea  of 
Galilee,  twelve  and  one-half  miles  in  length  and  eight  in 
width,  is  beautiful  in  itself  and  in  its  natural  surround¬ 
ings.  As  it  lies  nearly  700  feet  below  the  level  of  the 
Mediterranean  and  is  well  surrounded  by  hills,  it  usually 
escapes  the  severity  of  the  winds  that  sweep  across  the 
country.  Sometimes,  however,  it  is  not  so;  to-day,  as 
in  our  Lord’s  time,  the  sea  is  occasionally  very  tempes¬ 
tuous.  From  the  Sea  of  Galilee  the  Jordan  flows  south¬ 
ward  until  it  empties  in  the  Dead  Sea.  The  distance  by 
a  straight  line  is  only  65  miles,  but  so  many  are  the  river’s 


90  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


turnings  that  its  course  measures  nearly  200  miles.  Here 
and  there  the  river  affords  a  beautiful  view;  but  the  nar¬ 
row  valley  is  for  the  most  part  so  flat  and  so  subject  to 
inundations,  that  it  is  mostly  given  over  to  the  luxuriance 
of  vegetation  and  to  wild  beasts.  Between  Galilee  and  the 
Dead  Sea  there  are  very  few  convenient  fords  or  ferries ; 
the  chief  place  for  passage  is  that  near  Jericho,  which  was 
used  by  the  Israelites  in  their  invasion  of  the  land. 

The  region  “beyond  Jordan”  is  again  a  plateau,  here 
and  there  attractive,  but  for  the  most  part  rather  for¬ 
bidding.  The  mountains  of  Moab  rise  precipitously  from 
near  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Farther  to  the 
north  the  land  is  less  elevated. 

At  the  present  time  but  little  of  Palestine  seems  fertile 
according  to  our  standards.  No  one,  indeed,  fails  to  see 
fertility  in  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  and  in  the  coast  plain 
near  Haifa,  and  in  the  plain  of  Sharon.  But  the  traveler 
is  forced  to  ask:  If  then  this  the  land  flowing  with  milk 
and  honey?  But  an  examination  of  the  face  of  the 
country  reveals  several  things  to  us.  We  find  on  mul¬ 
titudes  of  hillsides  the  remains  of  ancient  terraces.  A 
system  of  terraces  can  make  nearly  any  country  produc¬ 
tive,  if  water  can  be  found.  The  rainfall  in  Palestine 
is  rather  scant,  and  it  comes  with  suddenness  and,  because 
of  the  hilly  nature  of  the  country,  it  swiftly  passes  away. 
Terracing,  of  course,  largely  overcomes  the  difficulty, 
especially  as  the  construction  of  reservoirs  for  irrigation 
naturally  attends  the  terracing.  Besides,  there  is  evidence 
that  many  of  the  hills  not  used — perhaps  not  just  avail¬ 
able — for  vineyards  and  olive  groves  were  once  covered 
with  natural  forests.  The  hills  now  are  comparatively 
bare.  It  is  possible,  moreover,  that  (as  some  scientists 


J 


f 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE  91 

believe)  the  rainfall  was  more  abundant  in  ancient  times 
than  now. 

The  physical  characteristics  of  the  country  are  wonder¬ 
fully  varied.  The  snows  of  Mount  Hermon  are  always 
visible  in  the  north.  The  elevations  in  upper  Palestine 
never  suffer  because  of  extreme  heat,  for  the  nights  are 
cool.  The  valley  of  the  Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea  has  a 
tropical  climate  in  summer.  But  the  hill  country  of  Judea 
is  always  tolerable.  Refreshing  breezes  from  the  Medi¬ 
terranean  are  frequent,  and  they  affect  all  the  land  except 
the  deep  valley  of  the  Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea.  On  the 
whole,  the  country,  by  virtue  of  excellent  natural  drain¬ 
age,  abundant  sunshine  and  frequent  breezes,  has  a  very 
salubrious  climate. 

The  occupations  of  the  people  in  Bible  times  were  de¬ 
termined  by  the  natural  resources  of  the  land.  The  plains 
and  some  of  the  hillsides  were  available  for  agriculture. 
In  Bible  times  an  intensive  cultivation  of  the  vine  and 
the  fig  and  the  olive  tree  was  of  striking  importance.  The 
Sea  of  Galilee  yielded  an  abundance  of  fish.  The  hills  of 
Judea  were  suited  to  flocks  of  sheep  and  goats  and  in 
part  to  the  cultivation  of  the  vine,  the  fig  and  the  olive. 
In  Samaria,  and  especially  in  Gilead  and  Bashan  on  the 
east  of  the  Jordan,  cattle  were  raised.  Ancient  Palestine 
supported  a  relatively  large  population.  The  want  of 
good  harbors,  as  well  as  the  Israelitish  policy  of  national 
separateness,  prevented  the  development  of  an  extensive 
commerce,  though  Israel’s  neighbors  and  kinsmen,  the 
Phoenicians,  were  once  the  leading  maritime  nation  of  the 
world. 

History. — It  is  on  the  background  of  these  physical 
and  geographical  conditions  that  the  Hebrew  people  de¬ 
veloped.  This  development  falls  into  several  distinct 


92  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


periods.  The  nation’s  history  proper  begins  with  Moses 
and  the  Exodus ;  what  came  before  is  largely  prehistoric. 
And  yet  that  pre-Mosaic  period  is  of  importance  for  our 
understanding  of  the  life  of  Israel. 

(1)  The  Pre-Mosaic  Period.  Its  records  as  found  in 
the  book  of  Genesis  are  made  up  of  traditions,  legends  and 
folk-poetry.  But  we  need  not  infer  that  these  records  are 
without  historical  value.  Their  chief  interest  and  value 
for  us  lies,  however,  not  so  much  in  the  history  which 
they  purport  to  record  as  in  the  self-disclosure  of  the 
religion  and  civilization  of  the  people  at  the  time  in  which 
the  records  were  finally  written.  The  substance  of  these 
early  narratives  was  for  many  centuries  handed  down 
orally.  When  at  length  the  traditions  came  to  be  written 
down,  they  received  the  stamp  of  the  religious  thought 
of  the  time  of  the  writing,  though  of  course  at  many 
points  they  disclose  also  the  ideas  and  practices  of  earlier 
times.  Traditions  which  were  the  common  property  of 
the  Semitic  peoples  were  in  Israel  gradually  transfused 
by  the  spirit  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and  so  also  in  a 
measure  transformed.  As  to  the  direct  historical  value 
of  the  early  narratives  of  Genesis  there  are  differences  of 
opinion  among  scholars.  Egypt  and  Babylonia  have  mon¬ 
uments  and  inscriptions  reaching  back  far  beyond  the  time 
of  Abraham.  Israel’s  traditions,  on  the  other  hand,  were 
merely  oral  until  a  much  later  period.  We  have  no 
Hebrew  monuments  or  inscriptions  that  date  as  early  even 
as  the  time  of  Moses.  Yet  Abraham  was  doubtless  a 
real  personage  and  the  period  from  Abraham  to  Moses  is 
semi-historical. 

(2)  The  age  of  Moses  and  Joshua  or  the  period  of  the 
Exodus  and  the  Conquest. 

(3)  The  period  of  the  Judges. 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE  93 

(4)  The  period  of  the  United  Kingdom,  ending  with 
the  death  of  Solomon  942  or  935  B.  C. 

(5)  The  period  from  the  Disruption  of  the  Kingdom  ^ 
to  the  Babylonian  Captivity.  The  Northern  Kingdom 
is  brought  to  an  end  by  the  fall  of  Samaria  in  721  B.  C., 
while  the  Kingdom  of  Judah  lasted  until  the  Babylonian 
Captivity  586  B.  C. 

(6)  The  Babylonian  Captivity,  or  Exile,  from  586  to 
about  536  B.  C. 

(7)  The  Persian  period  lasting  from  the  rise  of  Cyrus 
the  Great  until  the  conquest  of  Palestine  and  Syria  by 
Alexander  in  333-332  B.  C. 

(8)  The  Greek  (or  Grseco-Macedonian)  period  from 
333  to  165  B.  C.  Some,  however,  would  reckon  the 
Greek  or  Seleucid  period  as  beginning  in  312,  with  Seleu- 
cus  (Nicator)  as  King  of  Syria. 

(9)  The  Maccabean  period  of  independence  begin¬ 
ning  with  the  successful  revolt  of  Judea  under  Judas 
Maccabaeus  165  and  ending  with  the  Roman  conquest, 
which  took  place  40-37  B.  C. 

(10)  The  Roman  period  beginning  with  the  conquest 
under  Pompey  accomplished  in  the  years  40-37  B.  C.  and 
ending  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  under  the  gen¬ 
eralship  of  Titus  in  70  A.  D.  From  this  last  date  the 
Jews  have  had  no  country,  though  they  have  never  ceased 
to  be  a  distinct  people. 

Such  are  the  stages  of  the  general  Biblical  history  of 
the  people  of  Israel.  If,  however,  we  inquire  specially 
concerning  Israel’s  religious  history,  we  shall  find  it  nat¬ 
urally  falling  into  five  chief  periods : 

(1)  The  religion  of  the  prehistoric  period. 

(2)  The  religion  of  the  period  from  Moses  to  the  rise 
of  the  great  prophets 


94  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


(3)  The  religion  of  the  period  from  the  rise  of  the 
great  prophets  to  the  Exile. 

(4)  The  religion  of  the  Exile. 

(5)  The  religion  of  the  post-exilic  period. 

From  their  early  prehistoric  period  the  Hebrews 
brought  well-established  national  customs  and  tendencies 
which  never  were  wholly  obliterated.  The  sojourn  in 
Egypt  swept  away  some  of  these  ancient  customs,  but 
the  Exodus  brought  the  people  of  Israel  again  into  con¬ 
tact  v/ith  Semitic  tribes  and  the  old  traditions  were  largely 
reestablished.  The  chief  significance  of  the  wanderings 
in  the  wilderness,  however,  lay  not  so  much  in  the  re¬ 
establishment  of  Semitic  traditions  as  in  the  firm  estab¬ 
lishment  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah  (or  Jahweh).  Be¬ 
fore  Israel  came  from  Egypt  into  Midian  some  of  the 
inhabitants  of  that  desert  country  were  practising  a  mo- 
nolatry  that  was  well  fitted  for  development  into  a  genu¬ 
ine  monotheism.  It  was  in  Midian  that  Moses,  while  a 
shepherd  keeping  the  flocks  of  his  father-in-law,  Jethro, 
received  his  call  to  go  back  to  Egypt,  and  in  the  name 
of  Jahweh,  the  living  God,  to  bring  forth  the  people  in 
order  that  they  might  worship  the  God  of  their  fathers. 
It  was  at  this  same  spot  that  the  children  of  Israel  were 
encamped,  when  Moses  from  the  neighboring  Mount 
Sinai  delivered  to  the  people  the  Ten  Commandments. 
The  central  thought  of  the  legislation  of  Sinai  is  a  cove¬ 
nant  to  worship  Jahweh  only. 

This  covenant  with  Jahweh  became  the  dominating 
thought  in  all  Moses’  work.  He  made  it  the  watchword 
of  the  people,  the  foundation  of  all  that  the  people  did 
in  peace  and  in  war.  All  the  commandments  were  linked 
with  the  first  commandment:  ‘T  am  Jahweh,  thy  God, 
that  brought  thee  up  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  Thou 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE 


95 


shalt  have  no  other  god  before  me.”  The  whole  Mosaic 
system  centers  in  this  thought.  The  duty  of  loyalty  to 
Jahweh  gradually  transformed  Israel  from  a  group  of 
tribes  into  a  nation.  It  may  be  that  at  the  first  relatively 
few  of  the  people  had  any  deep  insight  into  the  signifi¬ 
cance  of  the  covenant,  for  the  people  had  brought  with 
them  the  idolatries  of  Egypt.  The  transformation,  so 
far  as  it  was  really  carried  through  in  this  period,  was 
due,  humanly  speaking,  to  the  powerful  leadership  of 
Moses.  Among  the  great  individual  forces  in  history 
Moses  clearly  holds  a  very  high  place.  He  was  in  all 
respects  a  great  personality.  It  was,  however,  his  simple, 
grand  and  intense  religious  conviction  that  gave  him  his 
unique  significance.  To  the  people  he  was  both  ruler 
and  priest,  but  he  had  to  carry  on  his  work  in  an  atmos¬ 
phere  of  reluctance  and  sometimes  revolt,  for  the  people 
were  disposed  to  cling  to  their  Egyptian  religion.  Grad¬ 
ually,  however,  they  became  fully  impressed  with  the 
thought  that  they  were  Jahweh’s  people.  With  their 
entrance  into  Canaan,  however,  there  came  a  very  severe 
test  of  the  religious  loyalty  of  the  people.  After  a  partial 
conquest  of  the  land,  the  Israelites  mingled  much  with 
the  Canaanites,  who  worshipped  other  gods.  No  wonder, 
then,  that  the  worship  of  Israel  was  long  mingled  with 
the  idolatries  of  the  Canaanites.  Yet  in  the  heart  of  the 
people  of  Israel  there  persisted  the  deep  conviction  that 
they  were  Jahweh’s  covenant  people,  and  at  length  this 
conviction  became  completely  dominant. 

The  geographic  influences  ailecting  the  development  of 
Israel  reach  back  into  prehistoric  times.  The  Hebrews 
were  of  the  very  ancient  Semitic  stock,  and  like  all  the 
Semites,  they  held  fast  to  many  ancient  customs  and 
modes  of  thought  throughout  their  national  history. 


96  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

Where  was  the  cradle  of  the  Semitic  race?  This  can¬ 
not  be  answered  with  certainty.  It  may  have  been  in 
northern  Arabia,  or  it  may  have  been  yet  farther  to  the 
eastward.  The  Hebrews,  as  we  commonly  understand 
the  term,  are  identical  with  “the  children  of  Israel,”  but 
we  first  meet  with  the  name  “Hebrew”  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  in  connection  with  Abraham  (Genesis  14:13; 
“And  there  came  one  .  .  .  and  told  Abram  the  He¬ 
brew”).  From  this  and  other  indications  it  is  clear  that 
there  were  Hebrews  long  before  there  were  children  of 
Israel,  for  Israel  was  Jacob,  the  grandson  of  Abraham. 
The  earliest  Hebrews  were  a  nomadic  people.  They  seem 
to  have  come  into  Palestine  in  considerable  numbers  long 
before  the  time  when  they  finally  settled  in  the  land  under 
Joshua.  The  early  history  of  the  Hebrews  is  altogether 
obscure,  but  we  may  accept  the  Biblical  tradition  concern¬ 
ing  Abraham  and  his  descendants  as  representing  in  a 
general  way  historical  reality.  The  tradition  is  that 
Abraham  (or,  as  he  was  first  called,  Abram)  came  out  of 
the  land  of  Chaldsea  (from  “Ur  of  the  Chaldees”)  and 
that  he  journeyed  to  the  northwest  and  settled  for  a  time 
in  Haran  near  the  sources  of  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates 
Rivers  and  afterwards  came  into  the  land  of  Canaan. 
After  a  period  of  unsettled  life  in  Haran  and  Canaan,  a 
portion  of  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  namely,  Jacob 
and  his  family,  migrated  into  Egypt  on  account  of  the 
famine  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  With  a  store  of  pro¬ 
visions  Moses  led  forth  the  people  of  Israel  into  the 
desert  of  the  Peninsula  of  Sinai  and  after  his  death  the 
people  of  Israel  under  Joshua  gained  a  foothold  in  the 
land  of  Canaan  and  ultimately  became  its  masters. 

The  period  of  Joshua  and  the  Judges  must  remain  less 
clear  to  us  than  we  might  desire.  Some  things,  however. 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE 


97 


are  impressively  clear.  It  is  evident  that  both  the  Canaan- 
ites  and  the  Philistines  were  superior  to  Israel  in  civiliza¬ 
tion.  They  dwelt  in  walled  cities  and  they  had  fairly 
developed  the  arts  of  settled  peoples.  It  is  a  wonder  that 
Israel  overcame  them  in  the  conflict  at  arms.  It  is  even 
more  a  wonder  that  Israel,  though  conquering  thus,  was 
not  herself  in  turn  overwhelmed  and  taken  captive  by  the 
social  and  religious  ideals  of  these  peoples.  The  cor¬ 
ruption  of  Israel’s  religious  ideals  was  very  considerable, 
but  it  was  never  complete.  At  length  the  persistent  forces 
of  her  own  religious  and  ethical  ideals  triumphed  over  the 
lower  conceptions  of  the  surrounding  peoples.  The  re¬ 
ligion  of  the  time  of  Joshua  and  the  Judges  was  very 
crude,  and  the  worship  of  Jahweh  was  sadly  intermingled 
with  the  worship  of  false  gods.  Yet  it  seems  clear  that 
the  leaders  of  the  people  were  fairly  consistent  in  the 
singleness  of  their  devotion  to  Jahweh.  The  religious 
development  was  held  in  check  through  all  this  period  by 
the  nature  of  the  political  life  of  the  people.  Israel  was  a 
group  of  tribes  of  a  common  race  that  felt  themselves  to 
be  the  people  of  Jahweh.  It  was  only  when  Samuel,  the 
greatest  of  the  Judges,  laid  the  foundation  for  a  unified 
national  life,  that  the  religious  development  of  the  nation 
could  be  consistently  progressive. 

The  development  of  Israel  from  the  time  of  Samuel 
to  the  time  of  Solomon  was  swift  and  altogether  remark¬ 
able.  In  the  time  of  Saul,  the  first  King  of  Israel,  the 
progress  was  not  great,  because  Saul  himself  was  re¬ 
ligiously  and  morally  weak.  At  the  death  of  Saul,  the 
sense  of  national  solidarity  was  not  much  stronger  than 
at  the  beginning  of  his  reign.  There  was  a  temporary 
division  of  the  nation  on  the  question  of  the  royal  suc¬ 
cession.  It  was  only  the  immense  personal  popularity  of 


98  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


David  that  gave  him  eventually  a  united  people  to  reign 
over.  Under  David,  Israel  became  a  real  nation.  His 
military  successes  gave  him  Jerusalem,  hitherto  the  strong¬ 
hold  of  the  Jebusites,  and  brought  the  Philistines  into 
subjection.  He  extended  his  rule  also  northward  and 
eastward;  but  his  reign  had,  perhaps,  equally  great  sig¬ 
nificance  for  the  development  of  religion.  Saul  had  been 
essentially  superstitious;  David  was  genuinely  religious, 
and  given  to  the  undivided  worship  of  Jahweh.  Though 
himself  a  man  of  war,  David  remembered  in  everything 
Jahweh,  his  God.  And  David  would  have  built  a  temple 
unto  Jahweh,  but  this  was  not  granted  to  him. 

Solomon’s  reign  marks  the  highest  stage  of  power  and 
glory  that  Israel  was  destined  ever  to  reach.  In  a  re¬ 
markable  way  he  built  up  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  and 
especially  he  built  the  great  temple  there,  thus  centralizing 
the  ritual  worship  of  the  nation,  but  he  made  alliances 
with  many  surrounding  peoples  and  permitted  idolatrous 
practices  even  in  Jerusalem.  Religiously,  his  reign  de¬ 
notes  a  corrupting  tendency. 

Upon  the  death  of  Solomon,  the  Kingdom  broke 
asunder.  The  occasion  of  the  disruption  was  the  folly 
of  Rehoboam,  the  new  king,  in  refusing  to  lessen  the 
burdens  of  the  people.  The  leader  of  the  people  of  the 
North,  Jeroboam,  was  a  man  of  unusual  force;  and  when 
he  renounced  allegiance  to  Rehoboam  and  called  upon  the 
northern  tribes  to  follow  him,  they  did  so  with  a  will. 
But  Jeroboam’s  religious  convictions  were  slight.  He 
set  up  places  of  worship  in  his  own  realm  so  that  the 
people  need  no  longer  go  to  Jerusalem.  In  this  there 
would  have  been  no  harm  to  religion,  if  only  he  had  sought 
to  preserve  the  true  worship  of  Jahweh.  But  Jeroboam 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE 


99 


“made  Israel  to  sin”  in  providing  for  worship  after  the 
manner  of  the  Canaanites. 

From  this  time,  until  its  fall  in  721  B.  C.,  the  Northern 
Kingdom  was  never  even  approximately  free  from 
idolatry.  Perhaps  the  extreme  of  idolatrous  worship  was 
reached  in  the  reign  of  Ahab,  whose  wife,  Jezebel,  did 
all  in  her  power  to  further  the  worship  of  the  Canaanite 
and  Phcenician  deities.  But  a  mighty  reformation  led 
by  Elijah,  the  prophet,  followed  immediately.  This  re- 
form,  however,  did  not  signify  the  conversion  of  the  most 
of  the  people  to  a  pure  worship.  It  was  followed  by  King 
Jehu’s  boasted  “zeal  for  Jahweh,”  but  this  was  a  fearful 
exhibition  of  treachery  and  cruelty.  Such  is  the  picture 
of  the  religion  of  the  Northern  Kingdom — sometimes 
better,  sometimes  worse — until  the  fall  of  the  Kingdom. 
In  the  Southern  Kingdom  the  religious  history  is 
brighter;  yet  even  in  Judah  idolatry  sometimes  swept  over 
the  land.  There  were,  however,  certain  reform  move¬ 
ments  from  time  to  time,  especially  the  great  reform 
under  Josiah  toward  the  close  of  the  7th  century. 

The  religious  life  of  the  two  kingdoms  is  vividly  and 
faithfully  portrayed  in  the  Books  of  the  Kings.  The  out¬ 
wardly  conditioning  factors  of  the  religious  development 
in  the  centuries  during  which  the  two  kingdoms  existed 
side  by  side  are  chiefly  two:  (1)  The  varying  political 
policy  of  the  kings;  and  (2)  the  influence  of  neighboring 
peoples.  The  more  inward  factors  are  (1)  the  priestly 
and  (2)  the  prophetic  ideals  and  tendencies.  These  in¬ 
ward  factors  of  religious  development  deserve  careful 
consideration. 

In  all  historical  religions  we  find  the  priestly  idea  ex¬ 
pressing  itself.  Its  essence  is  a  regard  for  outward  forms 
of  worship  and  sacrifice,  and  the  establishment  of  the 


100  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


privilege  of  the  priestly  class  to  represent  the  people  in 
worship.  But  in  all  higher  religion,  that  is,  wherever  the 
personal  communion  with  God  is  conceived  as  the  essence 
of  religion,  we  find  the  expression  of  the  prophetic  idea. 
No  historical  religion,  however,  has  ever  become  purely 
prophetic  and  inward.  The  entrance  of  the  prophetic  idea 
does  not  eliminate  the  priestly  idea,  but  it  tends  to  sub¬ 
ordinate  it.  Now,  the  essence  of  prophecy  is  not  the  fore¬ 
telling  of  the  future.  It  is  the  interpreting  of  the  mind 
of  God,  or  speaking  for  God.  Incidentally,  of  course, 
prediction  of  the  future  is  involved  in  the  exercise  of  the 
prophetic  function,  but  this  is  never  its  chief  interest. 
The  prophetic  spirit  can  be  traced  in  the  history  of  Israel 
back  to  the  time  of  Moses.  Moses,  as  lawgiver  and  pro- 
claimer  of  the  will  of  God,  was  more  prophet  than  priest; 
and  yet  until  many  centuries  after  his  time,  prophecy  was 
on  a  comparatively  low  plane  in  Israel  because  the  con¬ 
ception  of  personal  and  ethical  religion  was  comparatively 
undeveloped. 

The  prophet  has  no  confidence  in  forms  and  ceremonies. 
He  may  not  wholly  repudiate  them,  but  he  recognizes  that 
godliness  is  something  inward  and  personal.  The  will  of 
God  is  righteousness  in  all  social  relations.  The  prophet 
speaks  as  God  bids  him  speak  and  sometimes  denounces 
the  practices  even  of  the  kings.  Ordinarily  he  denounces 
the  priests  because  of  their  formalism  and  their  indiffer¬ 
ence  to  plain  righteousness. 

The  priest,  on  the  other  hand,  has  his  eyes  fixed  upon 
the  past;  he  is  a  slave  to  tradition.  His  conception  of 
religion  is  that  God  is  pleased  and  honored  by  our  ob¬ 
servance  of  forms  and  ceremonies.  The  prophet,  believ¬ 
ing  in  the  living  God,  has  a  forward  look;  yet  he  looks 
also  at  the  past  and  at  the  present.  This  he  does,  how- 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE 


101 


ever,  not  in  order  to  preserve  forms,  but  in  order  to  inter¬ 
pret  the  mind  of  God;  and  he  looks  into  the  future  in 
order  to  picture  the  will  of  God  for  time  to  come.  He 
is  not  interested  in  the  approved  traditions  of  men’s  re¬ 
ligious  performances,  but  in  the  signs  of  God’s  working 
and  the  meaning  of  it.  The  prophet  has  also  a  very  wide 
view.  He  sees  not  only  the  whole  life  of  his  own  nation 
but  he  looks  also  at  the  movements  of  the  other  peoples. 
Looking  into  the  future  he  foretells,  not  so  much  the 
details,  but  the  great  essential  reality  of  that  which  is  to 
be.  His  function  is  not  to  disclose  mysteries  as  to  coming 
events,  but  to  acquaint  men  with  God. 

Prophecy  in  some  form,  lower  or  higher,  existed  in 
Israel  from  the  beginning,  but  in  the  8th  century  B.  C. 
it  sprang  up  in  special  strength.  Amos  was  the  first  of  the 
prophets  to  produce  a  book.  Indeed,  the  book  of  Amos 
is  the  oldest  complete  book  in  our  Bible.  Amos  was  a 
mighty  preacher  of  righteousness,  and  his  denunciation 
of  the  sins  of  the  people  was  tremendous.  At  about  the 
same  period  there  sprang  up  a  hope  of  a  future  glory  for 
Israel  and  for  the  world — the  Messianic  hope.  Having 
once  sprung  up,  it  never  perished.  This  hope  assumed 
various  forms  according  to  the  nature  of  the  experience 
and  the  spiritual  development  of  a  given  prophet,  but  in 
one  form  or  another  it  is  henceforth  the  most  significant 
feature  of  Israel’s  prophecy.  Broadly  speaking,  it  was  the 
hope  that  God  would  send  to  Israel  a  heavenly  king  and 
redeemer  who  should  bring  to  Israel  and  the  world 
supreme  and  endless  blessings. 

Generally  speaking,  monarchy  tended  to  support  and 
make  use  of  the  priesthood.  A  primary  interest  of  every 
monarch  is  the  unifying  of  national  life.  Now,  obviously, 
the  priesthood  is  a  powerful  organizing  and  conservative 


102  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


force.  Therefore,  we  naturally  find  king  and  priest 
working  hand  in  hand,  whether  it  be  in  the  interests  of  the 
worship  of  Jahweh,  or  in  the  service  of  false  gods.  The 
prophet,  on  the  other  hand,  tends  to  break  down  existing 
conditions  if  they  are  evil,  and  therefore  in  the  eyes  of  the 
worldly-minded  he  looks  like  a  disorganizer  and  de¬ 
stroyer;  yet  he  himself  knows  that  his  function  is  to  tear 
down  only  that  he  may  build  up.  The  priestly  tendency  at 
its  worst  is  mere  formalism;  at  its  best,  it  includes  a 
legalism  that  is  the  observance  of  all  required  forms  of 
righteousness  in  social  life.  At  its  best,  the  priestly  func¬ 
tion  is  quite  compatible  with  a  genuine  spirit  of  prophecy. 

The  period  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah  witnessed 
a  great  struggle  between  these  two  tendencies  in  religion, 
the  priestly  and  the  prophetic.  In  this  period  appeared 
some  of  the  greatest  prophets  and  all  of  them  showed  a 
frank  abhorrence  of  mere  ritual.  The  struggle,  however, 
did  not  end  with  the  period.  It  never  ended  absolutely. 

The  outward  conditions  of  the  religious  development 
of  the  people  of  Israel  in  the  period  of  the  Kings  were 
highly  significant.  Until  the  time  of  Solomon  it  was 
chiefly  the  Philistines  and  the  Canaanite  tribes  with  whom 
Israel  was  in  contact.  Solomon  brought  the  people  of 
Israel  into  contact  with  remoter  nations.  After  the  time 
of  Solomon,  the  Northern  Kingdom  came  into  rather 
direct  relations  with  Syria.  The  Syrian  influence,  along 
with  that  of  the  Philistines,  continued  to  be  quite  pro¬ 
nounced  until  the  power  of  Assyria  not  only  quenched  the 
aspirations  of  Syria,  but  also  ultimately  destroyed  Israel. 
At  the  same  time  Assyria  was  also  menacing  Judah,  and 
this  menace  was  the  background  of  much  of  the  prophecy 
of  Isaiah  of  Jerusalem.  The  destruction  of  the  Northern 
Kingdom  came  in  the  midst  of  Isaiah’s  labors  as  prophet 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE 


103 


in  Jerusalem.  By  paying  tribute  Judah  averted  destruc¬ 
tion  by  the  hand  of  the  Assyrian,  but  on  one  memorable 
occasion  it  was  a  swift  pestilence  that  drove  back  the 
invading  army  from  the  very  walls  of  Jerusalem.  At 
length  Judah  was  overwhelmed  and  led  into  captivity — 
not,  however,  by  that  Assyria,  which  had  so  long  threat¬ 
ened,  but  by  Babylon,  which  in  the  meantime  had  gained 
the  ascendency  over  Assyria  herself.  Nineveh,  the  As¬ 
syrian  capital,  has  been  destroyed  and  Babylon  has  become 
capital  of  the  empire. 

The  Babylonian  Captivity  of  Judah  had  an  immense 
religious  significance.  In  the  last  few  decades  before  the 
Captivity  (which  began  586  B.  C.)  we  find  a  m'ovement 
of  great  importance  for  the  religion  of  the  Jews.  It  was 
the  movement  that  brought  forth  and  established  Deu¬ 
teronomy  as  the  standard  of  religious  and  social  practice. 
This  book  was  in  a  large  measure  the  work  of  the  priests, 
but  it  is  far  more  than  a  priestly  document.  It  represents 
the  tendency  of  the  time  to  combine  the  priestly  and  the 
prophetic  elements.  Jeremiah,  the  great  prophet  of  the 
time,  recognized  in  the  work  of  the  priests  a  needful 
factor  for  the  life  of  the  people.  The  book  of  Deuter¬ 
onomy  is  made  the  basis  of  extensive  reforms  during  the 
reign  of  Josiah.  Now,  the  deep  ethical  and  spiritual 
influence  of  Jeremiah  and  the  wholesome  religious  educa¬ 
tion  of  the  people  on  the  basis  of  Deuteronomy  remained 
with  the  people  as  they  were  carried  into  captivity,  and 
the  treasure  involved  in  this  combined  influence  was  never 
lost.  The  captivity  threatened  the  annihilation  of  Israel’s 
great  hope  as  a  nation,  but  in  the  midst  of  the  deep 
depression  and  suffering  of  the  time,  a  marvel  of  religious 
development  takes  place.  The  apparent  destruction  of  the 
nation’s  hopes  led  prophetic  souls  to  turn  to  God  for  light. 


104  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Religion  became  at  once  more  individual  and  more  uni¬ 
versal,  more  inward  and  at  the  same  time  wider  in  its 
outlook.  The  promise  of  Jahweh  cannot  fail  even  though 
Israel  should  never  realize  her  national  hopes.  It  is  from 
this  period  that  we  have  the  great  prophecy  concerning 
the  Suffering  Servant  in  the  writings  of  the  unknown 
prophet  called  Deutero-Isaiah  (Isaiah  40-55).  In  all  this 
suffering  of  Israel,  God  has  a  purpose — the  salvation  of 
the  Gentiles. 

In  the  Captivity  another  tendency  manifests  itself  side 
by  side  with  the  prophetic  spirit.  Priestly  tradition  is  fur¬ 
ther  developed  and  reduced  to  literary  form.  The  Priestly 
Code,  which  later  formed  a  part  of  the  Pentateuch,  as¬ 
sumed  shape  chiefly  in  the  Exile;  and  a  great  prophet  of 
the  time,  Ezekiel,  who  began  to  prophesy  before  the  Cap¬ 
tivity  and  continued  for  some  decades  during  it,  is  the 
characteristic  example  of  the  union  of  the  prophetic  and 
the  priestly  tendencies.  Also  many  of  the  Psalms  date 
from  this  time,  and  the  book  known  as  the  Lamentations 
of  Jeremiah.  All  these  productions  show  the  immense 
religious  significance  of  the  period  of  the  Exile. 

At  length  the  Jews  are  permitted  by  the  decree  of 
Cyrus,  the  new  master  of  the  world,  to  return  to  Jerusalem 
(538-536  B.  C.).  With  the  return  there  develops  the 
phase  of  the  religion  of  the  Jews  that  had  its  germ  in  the 
reign  of  Josiah.  This  new  phase  is  known  as  Judaism. 
Its  fundamental  characteristic  is,  on  the  one  hand,  the 
amalgamating  of  the  ceremonial  with  the  moral  law,  and, 
on  the  other,  the  recognition  of  the  authority  of  the  great 
prophets  of  the  past.  Deuteronomy  and  Ezekiel  are  the 
characteristic  examples  of  the  union  of  legal  and  cere¬ 
monial  principles  in  the  era  before  Judaism  proper  became 
established.  But  the  era  of  Judaism  produced  its  special 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE 


105 


literature  and  recognized  the  approved  writings  of  former 
times  and  brought  them  into  shape  and  gave  to  them  the 
sanction  of  universal  recognition. 

In  some  respects  Judaism  represents  a  great  advance 
over  the  pre-exilic  religion.  Idolatry  has  now  been 
effectually  overcome.  The  individual  responsibility  to 
God  has  gained  a  much  larger  recognition.  The  social 
character  of  religion  is  emphasized  and  the  whole  nation 
is  organized  upon  the  basis  of  a  moral  law.  Jeremiah 
had  introduced  the  element  of  individualism  into  his 
warnings.  Ezekiel,  writing  from  the  Exile,  had  carried 
the  principle  much  further,  insomuch  that  he  has  been 
called  the  prophet  of  individualism.  Yet  in  the  system  of 
Judaism,  the  individual  is  never  thought  of  in  separation 
from  the  nation.  It  is  a  system  of  the  union  of  the  na¬ 
tional  and  individual  points  of  view.  Another  point  of 
advance  is  the  thorough  organization  of  the  people  for 
instruction  in  matters  of  religion  and  social  righteousness. 
The  leader  in  this  work  was  Ezra,  the  scribe.  In  order 
to  make  effective  the  plan  of  religious  instruction,  Ezra 
and  others  gathered  up  the  books  held  in  highest  esteem, 
edited  them  and  began  to  establish  a  canon  of  Sacred 
Scriptures.  To  the  writings  thus  recognized,  additions 
were  made  from  time  to  time  until  about  150  B.  C.,  when 
the  canon  was  closed. 

The  large  measure  of  wholesomeness  in  the  system  of 
Judaism  cannot  be  questioned,  but  along  with  the  ele¬ 
ments  of  good  and  of  progress,  some  factors  of  a  contrary 
nature  were  at  work.  It  was  good  to  establish  systematic 
religious  instruction,  but  it  was  not  good  that  a  religious 
formalism  gradually  gained  ascendency.  It  was  good  that 
there  was  a  zeal  for  keeping  the  commandments,  but  it 
was  evil  that  the  spirit  of  the  law  was  sometimes  forgot- 


106  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


ten  in  its  formal  observance.  Thus  there  grew  up  many 
traditions  that  obscured  the  real  meaning  of  the  law. 
Little  by  little  needless  details  of  outward  righteousness 
were  added  until  religious  observance  was  lost  in  a  mere 
formalism.  It  was  evil,  too,  that  the  fixing  of  a  list  of 
authoritative  scriptures  led  the  people  to  despise  every 
new  voice  of  prophecy,  and  even  to  deny  that  there  could 
be  any  further  inspiration.  Instead  of  the  ethical  and 
spiritual  prophecy  of  former  days,  there  grows  up  a 
tendency  to  apocalyptic  prediction.  The  essence  of 
apocalyptic  prediction  is  the  forecasting  of  future  events 
rather  than  the  interpreting  of  the  mind  of  God.  Know¬ 
ing  that  he  cannot  hope  to  be  recognized  as  a  genuine 
prophet,  the  man  with  a  message  ascribes  his  revelation  or 
apocalypse  to  some  earlier  prophet  of  recognized  authority. 
The  Messianic  hope,  of  course,  was  continually  stirring, 
but  it  tended  to  grow  more  and  more  narrow  and  selfish 
in  its  outlook. 

Such,  in  brief,  was  the  development  of  Israel  until  the 
appearance  of  Jesus.  Every  period  in  this  development 
has  left  its  mark  upon  the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  that  literature  can  only  be  understood  as  an  outgrowth 
of  these  historical  movements.  In  the  pre-Mosaic  period 
there  were  no  writings,  and  yet  the  people  of  Israel 
brought  from  that  dim  past  an  immense  body  of  ideas 
and  customs  which  helped  to  shape  their  whole  subsequent 
history.  Laws,  which  were  only  written  down  centuries 
later,  were  largely  shaped  in  the  customs  of  the  people 
long  before  Moses’  time.  Even  the  period  of  Moses  and 
Joshua  could  have  produced  but  little  in  the  way  of  actual 
writing,  yet  doubtless  Moses  was  the  great  lawgiver  of 
Israel,  and  the  heart  of  what  is  known  as  Mosaic  legisla¬ 
tion  came  from  his  hand.  Such  laws,  however,  as  Moses 


THE  HEBREW  LAND  AND  PEOPLE 


107 


may  have  given  forth  must  afterwards  have  been  tran¬ 
scribed  and  rewritten  from  time  to  time,  so  that  we  can 
hardly  assume  that  we  have  writings  directly  from  his 
hand.  In  the  time  of  the  Kings  we  have,  however,  a  rich 
literary  productivity.  Books  of  history  and  of  prophecy 
and  of  legislation  belong  to  this  time.  Yet  some  of  these 
writings  were  recast,  edited  and  put  into  final  form  in 
the  period  after  the  Exile.  The  historical  books  produced 
in  the  time  of  the  Kings  represent  traditions  which  have 
been  handed  down  orally  from  very  ancient  times,  but  it 
is  doubtful  whether  the  actual  literary  production  of  the 
nation  began  to  assume  any  considerable  proportions  until 
the  time  of  Solomon.  The  earlier  writings  were  either 
lost  or  absorbed  into  later  writings.  The  period  of  book¬ 
making  in  the  modern  sense  was  the  period  after  the 
return  from  the  Exile.  Strangely  enough,  virtually 
nothing  of  the  literature  of  Israel  produced  before  the 
time  of  the  fixing  of  the  Canon  has  been  preserved  except 
the  books  that  form  the  Canon.  The  writings  known  as 
Apocrypha  were  produced  almost  entirely  after  the  closing 
of  the  Canon. 

When  Jesus  appeared  and  taught  publicly  he  won  fol¬ 
lowers,  who  eventually  recognized  in  him  the  promised 
Messiah.  The  leaders  of  the  people,  however,  were  so 
filled  with  other  conceptions  of  the  kingdom  of  God  that 
they  could  not  receive  him.  The  preaching  of  Jesus  as 
Messiah  by  his  followers  brought  about  a  tremendous 
change  in  the  religious  history  of  the  nation.  While  a 
few  Jews  confidently  proclaimed  him  as  the  Messiah,  the 
most  of  the  people  rejected  him.  The  Jews  could  have 
received  Jesus  only  by  radically  renouncing  their  peculiar 
conception  of  the  nature  of  the  Messianic  kingdom.  In 
the  vivid  narratives  of  the  New  Testament  there  is  en- 


108  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

acted  before  our  eyes  the  profoundest  spiritual  tragedy  of 
all  history :  the  people  of  the  Messianic  hope  reject  the 
prophet  who  comes  bringing  even  more  than  they  had 
hoped  for. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  in  the  period  between  the 
closing  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon  and  the  appearance 
of  Jesus,  the  religious  history  of  Israel  was  at  a  stand¬ 
still.  It  was  rather  a  very  stirring  period,  but  the  period 
between  the  Testaments  sheds  light,  not  so  much  upon  the 
Old  Testament  as  upon  the  New.  The  significance  of  this 
interval  for  the  understanding  of  the  New  Testament  has, 
in  the  last  two  or  three  decades,  begun  to  receive  im¬ 
mensely  greater  recognition  than  before. 

The  New  Testament  is,  perhaps,  even  more  clearly  the 
outgrowth  of  a  special  religious  history  than  is  the  case 
with  the"  Old.  The  New  Testament  writings  are  in  the 
most  direct  way  the  literary  expression  of  the  religious 
thought  and  activity  of  the  early  believers  in  the  Messiah- 
ship  of  Jesus. 


Chapter  IX 


% 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT :  EARLIER  PERIOD 

We  have  compared  the  Bible  to  a  vast  cathedral.  Many 
centuries  was  this  cathedral  in  building,  and  now  for 
many  centuries  the  Christian  Church  has  had  the  finished 
temple,  including  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament, 
in  which  it  finds  and  worships  God.  Our  present  task 
is  to  sketch  the  history  of  the  building.  What  means 
have  we  for  accomplishing  this  task?  Where  are  we  to 
find  the  records  of  this  history?  The  answer  is:  We 
must  read  the  history  of  the  building  in  its  stones.  In 
other  words,  the  history  of  the  origin  of  the  Bible  must 
disclose  itself  through  an  examination  of  the  books  them¬ 
selves.  All  that  is  built  and  all  that  grows  bears  in  itself 
some  record  of  the  process  of  building  or  growth.  As 
an  architect  can  read  the  history  of  the  building  of  a  cathe¬ 
dral — and  that,  too,  without  disturbing  a  single  stone — so 
the  competent  critic  can,  without  desecration,  without 
tearing  anything  to  pieces,  read  the  history  of  the  con¬ 
struction  of  the  Bible.  Not  perfectly,  to  be  sure,  for 
there  are  not  a  few  problems  which  he  is  unable  to  solve  ; 
yet  with  much  sure  insight  and  a  goodly  measure  of  trust¬ 
worthy  results.  He  can  distinguish  the  orders  and  styles 
of  literary  architecture,  and  with  the  help  of  manifold 
sidelights  from  history  and  archaeology,  he  can  tell  us 
much  concerning  the  dates  of  the  several  writings  and  the 
influences  that  shaped  them  and  finally  put  them  together. 

109 


110  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Or — to  change  the  simile — the  critic  is  like  the  geologist 
who  reads  the  physical  history  of  the  earth  in  the  strata 
of  the  rocks  and  all  the  many  marks  of  past  changes. 

As  we  proceed  to  examine  the  literature  of  the  Old 
Testament,  in  order  to  learn  what  we  may  concerning 
its  construction,  we  are  quickly  made  aware  of  several 
obvious  facts. 

(1)  The  arrangement  of  the  books,  as  we  find  them 
in  the  ancient  or  the  modern  Bible,  affords  no  true  key 
to  the  relative  age  of  the  writings.  In  the  Hebrew  Bibles, 
the  books  of  the  “Torah”  and  the  “Former  Prophets” 
(historical  books)  are  placed  in  the  supposed  order  of 
the  events  narrated.  The  books  of  the  Latter  Prophets 
are  arranged  according  to  their  supposed  order  of  time, 
though  we  now  know  that  there  were  mistakes  in  this 
arrangement.  On  the  other  hand,  the  arrangement  of  the 
“Writings”  (Kethubim)  scarcely  purports  to  be  chron¬ 
ological.  Generally  speaking,  those  placed  near  the  end 
of  the  list  were  the  last  to  be  acknowledged  as  canonical. 
The  Torah,  as  a  whole,  is  placed  first  because  it  was  first 
to  be  acknowledged  as  Holy  Scripture.  The  Prophets 
stand  next  because  they  were  the  next  to  be  so  acknowl¬ 
edged.  The  Writings  are  placed  last  because  they  were 
the  last  to  be  canonized. 

(2)  Many  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
anonymous.  Not  one  of  the  books  which  we  now  class 
as  “historical”  names  its  own  author.  The  same  is  the 
case  with  Job,  Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Sol¬ 
omon  and  Jonah.  But  also  the  books  traditionally 
ascribed  to  Moses  are  in  reality  anonymous,  for  they  no¬ 
where  purport  to  come  from  the  hand  of  Moses.  The 
most  that  they  have  to  say  on  this  line  is  that  “Moses 
wrote”  the  various  bodies  of  laws  as  indicated  in  the 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  111 


books.  Likewise  large  portions  of  the  Psalter  and  of 
the  book  of  Proverbs  are  anonymous. 

(3)  Various  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  collec¬ 
tions  and  compilations.  This  is  obviously  the  case  with 
the  Psalter  and  the  Proverbs.  Further  examination  will 
reveal  it  to  be  the  case  also  with  several  other  books. 
The  work  of  historico-literary  criticism  must  be  both 
analytic  and  synthetic.  That  is  to  say,  critics  must  first 
take  the  books  as  they  stand  and  must  learn  to  distinguish 
their  separable  elements.  This  task  of  analysis  is  both 
necessary  and  interesting,  yet  is  incomparably  less  im¬ 
portant  than  the  task  of  synthetic  reproduction.  When  the 
parts  have  been  distinguished,  we  are  ready  for  the  far 
more  delightful  and  sympathetic  task  of  historical  recon¬ 
struction,  the  task  of  following  by  imagination  the  pro¬ 
cess  of  the  building  of  the  literature.  In  order  fairly  to  ac¬ 
complish  this  task  we  need  not  only  a  knowledge  of  the 
main  results  of  the  critical  analysis,  but  even  more  we 
need  historical  imagination  and  an  insight  into  the 
motives  and  influences  that  controlled  the  production  of 
the  literature.  In  the  following  historical  sketch  of  the 
growth  of  the  Old  Testament  we  shall  content  ourselves 
with  the  indispensable  minimum  of  analysis  and  chiefly 
devote  our  thought  to  the  historical  reconstruction. 

1.  Lost  Books  of  the  Hebrews.  When  we  consider 
the  fact  that  our  Old  Testament  includes  all  the  extant 
literature  of  the  Hebrews  down  to  the  time  of  Alexander 
the  Great  and  a  large  part  of  that  produced  between  the 
time  of  Alexander  and  the  middle  of  the  second  century 
B.  C.,  we  are  prepared  to  believe  that  very  much  of  their 
literature  perished.  Indeed,  what  has  been  lost  must  have 
immensely  exceeded  in  bulk  what  has  been  preserved.  In 
the  Old  Testament  specific  mention  is  made  of  a  number 


112  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


of  books  no  longer  extant.  “The  Book  of  the  Wars  of 
Jehovah”  is  referred  to  as  the  source  of  the  Song  of 
Arnon  (Num.  21:14,  15).  “  Book  of  Jashar”  (or 

“of  the  Upright”)  is  assigned  as  a  source  of  the  Song  of 
the  Sun  Standing  Still  at  the  Battle  of  Beth-horon  (Josh. 
10 :13).  Also  the  Song  of  the  Bow,  the  lament  of  David 
over  Saul  and  Jonathan,  was  found  “written  in  the  book 
Jashar”  (2  Sam.  1 :  18-27).  In  1  Sam.  10 :  25  there  is  an 
interesting  reference  to  Samuel’s  writing  in  a  book  “the 
manner  of  the  kingdom”  that  had  just  been  established 
with  Saul  as  King.  In  the  Books  of  the  Kings  we  gen¬ 
erally  find  at  the  conclusion  of  the  account  of  a  particular 
reign  such  a  reference  as  this  :  “Now  the  rest  of  the  acts 
of  (this  or  that  king)  .  .  .  are  they  not  written  in  the 
Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah”  (or  “of 
Israel”)  ?  These  are  not  our  “Chronicles,”  but  older  nar¬ 
ratives  now  lost.  In  our  Chronicles  we  find  mention  of  no 
fewer  than  ten  different  books  now  lost.  Still  others  are 
mentioned  in  the  Kings.  All  this  excites  our  curiosity. 
We  wish  to  know  all  that  may  be  known  of  the  possible 
extent  of  this  lost  literature,  of  its  character  and  contents. 
Above  all,  we  should  like  to  know  to  what  extent  our 
Old  Testament  books  may  have  gathered  up,  and  thus  pre¬ 
served,  elements  of  real  importance  in  these  otherwise 
lost  books.  Concerning  some  of  these  questions  our 
Biblical  scholars  can  do  no  more  than  make  their  more  or 
less  well  founded  guesses.  It  is  certain  that  in  several 
instances  older  books  have  been  largely  incorporated  in 
our  canonical  books,  and  the  form  of  the  original  writings 
can,  in  some  cases,  be  largely  reconstructed. 

2.  Jewish  Tradition  as  to  the  Age  and  Authorship  of 
the  Old  Testament  Books. — The  assembling,  editing  and 
canonizing  of  the  Scriptures  came  relatively  late.  This 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  113 


work  was  systematically  undertaken  only  from  the  time 
of  Ezra  (after  458  B.  C.)  and  was  not  concluded  until 
about  three  centuries  after  that  date.  In  the  process  of 
canonizing  the  Scriptures,  there  was  a  natural  inclination 
to  assign  all  the  books  to  some  worthy  and  revered 
author ;  yet  in  fact  most  of  the  ancient  writings,  except  the 
Prophets,  were  anonymous.  The  Jewish  rabbis,  there¬ 
fore,  in  their  great  veneration  for  :he  great  names  of  the 
nation’s  history,  and  with  a  like  reverence  for  the  writ¬ 
ings,  were  disposed,  as  far  as  possible,  to  find  among  those 
worthies  an  author  for  every  book.  Knowing  Moses  as 
the  great  lawgiver,  they  assigned  the  first  five  books,  “the 
Law,”  to  him.  The  books  from  Joshua  to  Kings,  inclu¬ 
sive,  they  called  the  Former  Prophets,  assuming  that 
Samuel  and  other  prophets  had  written  them.  They 
ascribed  the  largest  number  of  the  Psalms  to  David  and 
the  bulk  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs  to  Solomon.  To  the 
latter  they  ascribed  also  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song  of 
Songs.  Job  was  most  strangely  ascribed  to  Moses.  It 
should  be  made  clear  once  for  all  that  the  tradition  as  to 
the  authorship  of  the  Old  Testament  books  in  most  in¬ 
stances  does  not  reach  back  to  the  time  when  the  writings 
first  appeared.  For  the  most  part  it  dates  from  the  time 
after  the  Exile.  The  titles  of  the  Psalms  and  the  head¬ 
ings  of  the  different  collections  of  Proverbs  and  of  the 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  are  no  part  of  the  original  Scrip¬ 
tures.  The  surmises  of  the  Jewish  rabbis  in  the  last  cen¬ 
turies  before  the  Christian  era  have  for  us  no  final 
authority. 

3.  The  Origin  of  the  Books  of  the  Law. — We  naturally 
begin  our  inquiry  with  the  group  of  writings  that  stands 
first  in  our  Bibles.  These  were  the  first  to  be  recognized 
as  Holy  Scripture ;  and  although,  in  their  final  form,  they 


114  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


may  not  prove  to  be  nearly  as  old  as  we  supposed,  they  do 
record  the  earliest  traditions  of  Israel  and  do  contain  some 
of  the  oldest  materials  of  Hebrew  literature. 

The  Hebrew  tradition  as  to  the  authorship  of  these 
books  is  as  follows :  The  late  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
constantly  refer  to  the  Law  (that  is,  the  Law  as  contained 
in  the  Pentateuch)  as  the  work  of  Moses  (Ezra  3:2; 
7:6;  2  Chron.  34:  14),  but  even  here  there  is  nothing 
said  concerning  the  authorship  of  the  books  as  a  whole. 
On  the  other  hand,  Philo,  Josephus  and  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  writers  everywhere  assume  that  the  whole  Pentateuch 
is  to  be  ascribed  to  Moses.  The  Talmud  expressly  states 
that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch,  only  the  last  eight  verses 
of  Deuteronomy,  which  tell  of  the  death  of  Moses,  being 
added  by  Joshua.  Thus  we  see  that  the  tradition  ascrib¬ 
ing  all  these  writings  to  Moses  took  shape  in  the  interval 
between  the  date  of  the  Chronicles  and  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  time.  This  tradition  was  generally  adhered  to,  both 
in  Church  and  in  Synagogue,  until  the  seventeenth  cen- 

turv. 

•/ 

But  the  tradition  is  not  supported  by  the  testimony  of 
the  books  themselves.  In  no  way  whatsoever  do  they 
bear  the  signature  of  their  authorship.  Certain  important 
passages  are  expressly  stated  as  having  been  written  down 
by  Moses  (see  Ex.  17:  14;  24:  4,  “the  book  of  the  cove¬ 
nant”  Ex.  20-23 ;  34 :  27 ;  Num.  33:2;  Deut.  1 :  5 ;  4 :  45 ; 
31:9,  22,  24) .  Yet  every  other  reference  in  the  five  books 
naturally  suggests  that  Moses  is  thought  of  not  only  as 
other  than  the  writer  but  as  a  figure  of  an  age  long  past. 
The  ascription  of  particular  passages  to  Moses  is  even 
an  indirect  testimony  to  the  non-Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  rest  of  the  work. 

The  facts  that  first  provoked  doubts  as  to  the  Mosaic 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  115 


authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  are  a  number  of  expressions 
found  scattered  through  the  books  which  manifestly  pre¬ 
suppose  that  Israel  was  already  settled  in  Canaan  and 
which  look  back  upon  Moses  and  his  time  as  compara¬ 
tively  remote.  Yet  it  is  clear  that  such  passages  could  be 
accounted  for  as  having  been  later  insertions  in  the  text ; 
but  the  observation  of  these  incongruities  led  to  further 
inquiry,  with  the  result  that  many  highly  interesting  and 
important  discoveries  were  made. 

It  is  the  cumulative  evidence  of  various  passages  which 
cannot  be  ascribed  to  Moses  that  has  forced  critical  schol¬ 
ars  to  give  up  the  thought  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch.  Moreover,  there  are  passages  which  show 
the  clearest  evidence  of  having  proceeded  from  diflPerent 
sources.  Hence  strict  unity  cannot  be  ascribed  to  these 
books. 

As  to  the  expressions  in  the  Pentateuch,  which  could 
not  have  originated  with  Moses,  perhaps  the  following 
are  the  most  striking  examples.  Gen.  12:6  and  13:7, 
“the  Canaanite  dwelt  then  in  the  land,”  an  expression 
which  implies  that  at  the  time  of  the  writing  of  this  nar¬ 
rative  the  Canaanites  no  longer  occupied  the  land.  Gen. 
14:14,  “pursued  as  far  as  Dan”;  but  the  name  of  this 
city  was  Laish  until  it  was  renamed  in  the  time  of  the 
Judges  (Judges  18:29).  Gen.  36:31,  “And  these  are 
the  kings  that  reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom,  before  there 
reigned  any  king  over  the  children  of  Israel”;  the  ex¬ 
pression  is  impossible  before  the  time  of  Saul,  the  first 
king  of  Israel.  Gen.  40:15,  Joseph  is  represented  as 
speaking  of  Canaan  as  “the  land  of  the  Hebrews,”  an 
expression  possible  only  after  Joshua.  Deut.  1:1,  “be¬ 
yond  the  Jordan”  (RV),  in  reference  to  the  land  of 
Moab,  can  only  spring  from  the  pen  of  one  who  writes 


116  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


from  the  west  of  the  Jordan.  In  Deut.  4:14  the  “unto  this 
day”  puts  the  then  present  time  in  express  antithesis  to 
the  age  of  Moses.  Now  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  these 
and  similar  expressions  could  not  spring  from  Moses, 
but  since  they  might  represent  later  additions  to  the 
text,  Moses  might  still  be  the  author  of  the  books  as  a 
whole.  The  really  conclusive  objection  to  their  Mosaic 
authorship  is  based  upon  the  clear  evidence  that  the 
Pentateuch,  and  especially  Genesis,  is  a  composite  work 
based  upon  documents  of  various  ages  and  very  diverse 
characteristics,  so  that  it  could  not  originate  with  any 
single  author,  whether  Moses  or  another. 

The  proof  of  the  documentary  theory  of  the  origin  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  threefold.  (1)  In  the  different  sec¬ 
tions  we  note  a  marked  change  of  language.  One  sec¬ 
tion,  for  example,  says  “cut  a  covenant,”  another  “raise 
a  covenant”;  one  uses  saphah  for  “language,”  another 
lashon.  Such  differences  are  rather  numerous  and  are 
clearly  marked.  Along  with  the  differences  of  idiom,  we 
find  also  differences  of  names  for  the  same  place  or  per¬ 
son.  One  section,  for  example,  calls  the  inhabitants  of 
Palestine  “Amorites,”  another,  “Canaanites” ;  the  moun¬ 
tain  on  which  the  law  was  given  is  now  “Sinai,”  now 
“Horeb”;  the  third  patriarch  is  now  “Jacob,”  now 
“Israel”;  Moses’  father-in-law  is  in  one  section  “Jethro,” 
in  another  “Reuel”  (or  “Raguel”).  But  by  far  the  most 
striking  variation  is  found  in  the  designation  of  God  as 
“Jahweh”  and  “Elohim.” — These  differences  strongly 
suggest  the  use  of  different  written  sources  in  the  com¬ 
position  or  compilation  of  the  books. 

Another  reason  for  denying  the  literary  unity  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  the  presence  of  marked  discrepancies  in  the 
narratives  and  the  legislative  portions.  Very  obvious  ex- 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  117 


amples  are  the  following:  (a)  Two  accounts  of  creation 
(Gen.  1 :  1-2 :  3  and  2 :  4-25).  According  to  the  former 
the  creation  takes  place  in  six  days ;  according  to  the  lat¬ 
ter — possibly  aside  from  the  creation  of  Eve — in  one ;  in 
the  former  the  order  is  plants,  animals,  man ;  in  the  latter, 
man,  plants,  animals;  in  the  former  man  and  woman  are 
created  at  one  time ;  in  the  latter,  the  woman  after  the  man. 
(b)  Two  accounts  of  the  flood,  which,  although  inter¬ 
laced,  are  mutually  inconsistent.  According  to  the  one 
account  two  of  every  beast  are  taken  into  the  ark  (Gen. 
6:19),  while  according  to  the  other  it  is  seven  pairs  of 
the  clean  and  one  of  the  unclean  (7:2);  also  the  duration 
of  the  flood  is  40  days  in  7 :  4  and  150  days  in  7 :  24 ;  and 
there  are  several  other  differences,  (c)  Two  irreconcil¬ 
able  accounts  of  Joseph’s  coming  into  Egypt  (on  the  one 
hand  Gen.  37 :  22-24,  28a,  29  ff. ;  on  the  other  vv.  25-27, 
28b).  (d)  Two  very  different  accounts  of  the  call  of 
Moses  (Ex.  3  and  6).  (e)  Two  different  statements  re¬ 
specting  the  location  of  the  Tabernacle  (Ex.  33  :7  outside 
the  camp,  Num.  2  :2  ff.  in  the  midst  of  the  camp).  Of  the 
discrepancies  in  the  details  of  legislation  we  may  mention 
only  one,  namely,  that  there  are  two  statements  concern¬ 
ing  who  may  offer  the  sacrifices :  according  to  Deut. 
18 :  7  ff.  it  is  all  the  Levites,  according  to  Ex.  28 :  1  ff . 
only  the  sons  of  Aaron. 

(3)  The  third  reason  for  denying  the  literary  unity 
of  the  Pentateuch  is  the  presence  of  a  number  of  parallel 
accounts  of  the  same  event.  These  are  generally  easily 
recognizable  as  doublets.  In  every  instance  these  parallels 
show  such  variations  in  languages  or  circumstance,  or 
in  both,  as  to  exclude  the  assumption  of  their  springing 
from  a  single  source. 

If  it  should  be  objected  that  Moses  himself  might  have 


118  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


been  the  one  to  use  the  older  documents  in  writing  the 
Pentateuch,  the  obvious  answer  is,  that,  while  he  might 
have  made  use  of  documents  for  the  narratives  of  Genesis, 
he  could  have  had  no  possible  use  for  documents  concern¬ 
ing  his  own  work.  But  the  differences  noted  pertain  just 
as  surely  to  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch  as  to 
Genesis.  Now  the  age  of  these  documents  is  only  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  more  or  less  probable  conjecture.  Yet  one  thing  is 
a  well-established  fact:  the  Pentateuch  as  we  have  it 
grew  out  of  several  documents  written  in  Palestine  after 
the  time  of  Moses. 

Literary  criticism  has  shown  that  there  are  four  direct 
sources  for  the  Pentateuch.  They  are  designated  respec¬ 
tively  as  the  Jahvistic  (J),  Elohistic  (E),  Deuteronomic 
(D),  and  Priestly  (P)  sources.  The  first  is  so  called 
because  of  its  constant  use  of  the  name  of  Jahweh  as  the 
designation  of  the  God  of  Israel.  It  is  sometimes  called 
the  Judean  source,  because  it  originated  in  Judea.  The 
Elohistic  document  is  so  named  because  of  its  regular  use 
of  the  name  Elohim  for  God.  As  this  writing  originated 
in  the  Northern  Kingdom,  some  prefer  to  call  it  the 
Ephraimitic  source.  The  source  D  constitutes  the  larger 
and  most  important  part  of  our  Deuteronomy.  The 
Priestly  source  was  a  writing  prepared  by  the  priests. 

All  of  Leviticus  and  portions  of  the  other  four  books 
are  from  P.  It  is  doubtless  the  latest  of  the  sources. 
Most  scholars  date  it  after  the  Exile  (about  500 — 450 
B.  C.),  although  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  much  of  it 
was  prepared  in  the  Exile  and  some  of  it  even  before. 
D  is  the  next  above  P  in  age.  It  may  have  been  com¬ 
posed  about  623  B.  C.,  that  is,  shortly  before  it  was 
brought  to  light  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  Some  hold  that 
at  that  time  it  was  newly  finished;  others  that  it  was  a 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  119 


rediscovered  writing  of  an  earlier  date.  The  date  of  E 
is  perhaps  about  800  B.  C.,  while  J  is  to  be  dated  some¬ 
what  earlier,  perhaps  about  850  B.  C.  The  dates  for  J 
and  E  are  confessedly  uncertain,  but  the  relative  age  of 
the  documents  seems  clear. 

4.  The  Oldest  Materials  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  four 
great  “sources’’  are  not  the  oldest  literary  productions  of 
the  Hebrews.  Still  older  books  once  existed  which  have 
been  lost;  and  besides  older  writings  there  was  a  large 
body  of  oral  tradition  that  was  pretty  well  fixed  in  the 
minds  of  the  people.  It  is  certain  that  both  J  and  E  con¬ 
tain  materials  drav^^n  not  merely  from  oral  tradition,  but 
also  from  earlier  writings.  These  older  materials  are  of 
three  kinds :  poetical,  legislative,  narrative.  Their  age 
reaches  back  before  the  time  of  the  Kings  into  the  time 
of  the  Judges,  and  in  a  few  instances  even  into  the  time 
of  Moses. 

(1)  The  poetical  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  are — per¬ 
haps  in  every  instance — older  than  the  prose  compositions 
in  which  they  have  been  preserved.  In  Israel,  as  with  all 
other  peoples,  the  age  of  proper  authorship  was  preceded 
by  an  age  of  minstrelsy  and  folk-tales.  Of  this  early 
minstrelsy  we  find  fragments  in  the  Pentateuch  as  fol¬ 
lows  : 

(a)  The  Song  of  Lamech,  or  Song  of  the  Sword 
(Gen.  4:23  f.),  a  celebration  of  blood  revenge,  is  probably 
of  Midianite  or  Kenite  origin,  taken  up  by  the  Israelities 
in  the  time  of  Moses.  It  may  well  be  the  oldest  fragment 
in  the  Bible. 

(b)  The  Sayings  of  Noah  concerning  Shem,  Japheth 
and  Canaan  (Gen.  9:25-27).  Shem  and  Japheth  are 
blessed,  while  Canaan  is  cursed.  These  sayings  grew  up 
among  the  people  under  the  influence  and  experience  of 


120  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

a  time  long  after  that  of  Noah.  They  may  have  arisen 
in  a  pre-Mosaic  period  when  the  Canaanites  were  pressed 
on  two  sides,  by  the  Hittites  (who  were  of  Japheth)  on 
the  north,  and  by  the  Habiri  (who  were  of  Shem)  on  the 
east;  or  they  may  have  arisen  in  the  period  when  the 
Canaanites  were  yielding  to  Israel  (Shem)  and  the  Philis¬ 
tines  (Japheth),  after  Israel’s  settlement  in  Palestine. 

(d)  Jacob’s  Blessing  (Gen.  49)  contains  sayings,  some 
of  praise,  others  of  blame,  concerning  the  twelve  tribes. 
The  situation  or  background  implied  in  most  of  the  say¬ 
ings  is  that  of  the  time  of  the  Judges.  The  saying  con¬ 
cerning  Judah,  however,  must  have  originated  later,  per¬ 
haps  in  the  time  of  David,  because  it  refers  to  Judah  as 
holding  the  royal  scepter. 

(e)  The  Song  of  the  Red  Sea  (Ex.  15  :  1-19)  and  the 
song  of  Miriam  (verse  21).  The  latter  is  here  only  a 
fragment ;  possibly  it  represents  an  older  and  briefer  form 
of  the  same  folklore  poem  as  that  found  in  vv.  1-18. 
The  song  may  be  dated  from  the  time  of  the  wanderings 
in  the  wilderness. 

(f)  A  group  of  songs  relating  to  the  life  of  Israel  in 
the  wilderness,  mostly  preserved  by  the  Elohist.  These 
all  belong  to  the  latest  period  of  the  wanderings,  of  which 
period  the  records  are  relatively  clear  and  accurate.  There 
is  in  Ex.  17 :  16  a  very  old  Oath  by  the  Ark  of  the  Cove¬ 
nant.  Moses  called  the  altar  that  he  raised  after  the  vic¬ 
tory  over  the  Amalekites  Jahweh-nissi,  “Jahweh  is  my 
banner.”  And  he  said :  “A  hand  upon  the  throne  of  Jah! 
Jahweh  will  have  war  with  Amalek  from  generation  to 
generation.”  Then  there  are  the  Sayings  (Num.  10:  35  f.) 
relating  to  the  Ark,  as  it  went  forward  and  as  it  rested  in 
the  marches  of  the  people  in  the  wilderness.  The  Aaron- 
itic  Blessing  is  found  in  Num.  6 : 24-27.  The  Song  of 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  121 


Arnon  is  given  in  Num.  21 :  14  f.  and  the  charming  Song 
of  the  Well  in  verses  17  and  18.  These  both  doubtless 
sprang  from  the  people  that  had  actually  made  the  journey. 
A  Song  of  Contempt  of  Sihon  (Num.  21 :  27-30)  is  evi¬ 
dently  composed  out  of  the  fresh  memories  of  the  con¬ 
flicts  with  the  Amorites. 

(g)  There  are  four  Oracles  of  Balaam  (Num.  23  :  7-10 
and  18-24;  24 :  3-9  and  15-24).  The  first  two  are  given 
by  the  Elohist,  the  last  two  by  the  Jahvist ;  they  are,  how¬ 
ever,  all  older  than  the  documents  in  which  they  have  been 
preserved  to  us.  References  to  certain  conditions  indi¬ 
cate  that  they  sprang  from  the  time  of  the  Kings,  but 
before  the  disruption  of  Kingdom. 

(2)  The  earliest  legislative  portions  of  the  Penta¬ 
teuch. — It  is  now  an  established  fact  that  the  laws  of  the 
people  of  Israel  were  not  all  promulgated  at  a  single  time. 
They  were  the  product  of  successive  ages.  The  legal 
system  grew.  Long  before  there  was  a  written  law  there 
was  a  body  of  well-established  legal  customs.  At  first  the 
written  laws  were  inscribed  on  stones;  later  the  law  was 
written  out  more  amply  and  in  greater  detail  in  books. 
Israel’s  written  law  was  not  finished  until  some  time  after 
the  Exile,  and  we  know  that  even  in  the  time  of  Christ  the 
Pharisees  were  observing  many  “traditions  of  the  elders” 
which  never  had  been  written  in  the  Law  at  all.  Undoubt¬ 
edly  Moses  was  Israel’s  great  lawgiver.  The  main  stock 
or  trunk  of  the  law  was  given  through  Moses.  Later 
accretions  or  outgrowths  came  so  gradually  that  the 
people  in  all  good  faith  ascribed  all  their  law,  even  its 
latest  developments,  to  Moses.  But  Moses  himself  in¬ 
herited  from  a  remoter  antiquity  a  body  of  Semitic  cus¬ 
toms,  which  he  and  the  people  held  to  be  binding.  There 
are  many  striking  similarities  between  the  legal  system 


122  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


of  Israel  and  the  Code  of  Laws  of  Hammurabi,  a  Baby¬ 
lonian  king  who  reigned  some  2000  years  B.  C.  The 
points  of  resemblance,  however,  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  central  principle  of  the  Mosaic  legislation,  namely,  the 
covenant  between  Jahweh  and  Israel,  but  only  with  a  mass 
of  individual  and  civil  rights. 

The  oldest  written  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  must 
reach  back,  at  least  in  its  substance,  to  the  time  of  Moses 
himself ;  though  it  is  almost  certan  that  in  form  the  earli¬ 
est  legislation  had  been  recast  before  it  reached  the  form 
in  which  we  know  it.  The  oldest  legislative  portions 
are  the  following:  (a)  the  Decalogue  as  given  in  Ex. 
20:1-17  (and,  in  essential  agreement,  Deut.  5:6-21); 
(b)  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  20:23-23:19) ;  (c) 
the  so-called  Jahvistic  Decalogue  (Ex.  34:10-27;  (d)  the 
Twelvefold  Curse  in  Deut.  27:  15-26;  (e)  the  Law  of 
Holiness  (Lev.  17-26).  The  whole  question  of  the  age 
and  source  of  these  legislative  portions  of  the  Pentateuch 
is  much  disputed. 

(a)  The  Decalogue  of  Ex.  20  and  Deut.  5  may  be  re¬ 
garded  as  substantially  Mosaic,  only  with  the  rewriting 
assumed  above.  The  language  of  both  passages  is  un¬ 
questionably  that  of  the  age  of  the  Kings  and  the  Prophets 
and  not  that  of  an  earlier  period.  There  is  a  dispute 
among  scholars  as  to  whether  the  form  of  the  Decalogue 
with  which  we  are  familiar  represents  the  original  Com¬ 
mandments  as  promulgated  by  Moses  at  Sinai.  Some 
scholars  hold  that  the  so-called  “J  Decalogue”  of  Ex.  34 
more  nearly  represents  the  original  form  of  the  legislation. 
It  should  be  observed  that  the  ‘‘J  Decalogue”  is  largely 
ceremonial,  while  the  other  (the  “E  Decalogue”)  is  more 
ethical.  Some  claim  that  the  ceremonial  must  have  been 
the  earlier.  To  this  it  is  replied  that  the  legislation,  which 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  128 

critics  generally  ascribe  to  Moses,  is  not  less  ethical  than 
our  “E  Decalogue.”  Furthermore,  it  is  objected  that 
in  Ex.  34  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  reconstruct  any  deca¬ 
logue  at  all. 

(b)  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  is  placed  in  Exodus 
in  close  connection  with  the  giving  of  the  Ten  Command¬ 
ments  on  Mt.  Sinai.  But  in  Deuteronomy  there  is  an 
explicit  account  (from  E)  of  Moses’  giving  the  people 
the  Law  of  the  Covenant  shortly  before  the  close  of  his 
life  and  directing  that,  as  soon  as  they  should  have  crossed 
over  into  the  land  of  Canaan,  they  should  write  it  upon 
tables  of  stone  and  promulgate  it  on  Mt.  Ebal  (or 
Gerizim?)  near  Shechem  (Deut.  27:1-8).  As  this  ac¬ 
count  of  the  giving  of  the  Law  of  the  Covenant  and  the 
portion  of  Exodus  known  as  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
are  both  from  the  Elohist,  and  as  the  two  fit  together  per¬ 
fectly,  it  seems  clear  that  the  two  passages  originally  be¬ 
longed  together.  Thus  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  is  to 
be  connected,  not  with  the  legislation  of  Mt.  Sinai,  but 
with  the  closing  period  of  Moses’  life. 

This  Book  of  the  Covenant  shows  some  direct  resem¬ 
blances  to  the  code  of  Hammurabi.  These  resemblances 
do  not  at  all  imply  that  Moses,  or  the  people  of  Israel  at 
any  later  time,  had  any  immediate  knowledge  of  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  code.  The  similarity  is  to  be  ascribed  simply  to 
the  common  tradition  of  Semitic  peoples.  In  respect  of 
social  relations  the  Code  of  Hammurabi  is  better  de¬ 
veloped  than  that  of  Moses.  In  matters  of  religion  and 
ideals  of  righteousness,  the  Mosaic  Code  is  incomparably 
the  higher  of  the  two. 

(c)  The  so-called  'V.  Decalogue''  (Ex.  34:  10-27). 
The  question  as  to  whether  this  passage  constitutes  a 
decalogue  was  suggested  by  the  occurrence  in  Ex.  34 :  28 


124  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


of  the  expression:  “the  ten  words.”  But  it  is  possible 
that  this  expression  is  an  editorial  addition.  Some  schol¬ 
ars  hold  that  we  have  here  fragments  of  the  original 
Decalogue,  intermingled  with  some  of  the  ceremonial 
ordinances  of  the  Covenant.  At  all  events  the  passage 
contains  some  very  old  materials. 

A  comparison  of  the  two  “Decalogues”  will  prove  in¬ 
structive.  When  we  examine  the  “E  Decalogue,”  we  note 
that  the  essence  of  each  Commandment  can  be  expressed 
in  a  single  sentence.  It  is  this  briefer  form  of  the  “Ten 
Words”  that  has  ever  been  impressed  in  the  memory  of 
the  people. 

Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me. 

Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thyself  any  graven  image. 

Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  Jahweh  thy  God  in  vain. 

Remember  the  sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy. 

Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother. 

Thou  shalt  not  kill. 

Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 

Thou  shalt  not  steal. 

Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness. 

Thou  shalt  not  covet. 

The  “J  Decalogue,”  according  to  the  reconstruction  of 
some  scholars,  appears — likewise  in  its  briefer  form — 
as  follows : 

Thou  shalt  worship  no  other  god. 

Thou  shalt  make  thee  no  molten  gods. 

The  feast  of  unleavened  bread  thou  shalt  keep. 

Six  days  thou  shalt  work,  but  on  the  seventh  day  thou 
shalt  rest. 

Thou  shalt  observe  the  feast  of  the  weeks ; 

And  the  feast  of  ingathering  at  the  year's  end, 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  125 

Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  any  sacrifice  with 
leavened  bread. 

The  sacrifice  of  the  Passover  shall  not  be  left  till 
morning. 

The  first  of  the  firstfruits  of  thy  ground  shalt  thou 
bring  into  the  house  of  Jahweh  thy  God. 

Thou  shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in  its  mother’s  milk. 

(d)  The  Twelvefold  Curse  (or  Twelvefold  Command¬ 
ment)  of  Shechem  (Deut.  27:  15-26). — There  are  indi¬ 
cations  that  for  a  period  there  was  in  Shechem  a  celebra¬ 
tion  of  the  Covenant.  The  people,  it  seems,  repeated 
from  time  to  time  the  form  of  the  first  promulgation  of 
the  Covenant  as  described  in  Deut.  27 :  1-8.  The  public 
reading  of  the  Covenant  was  followed  by  the  liturgy  of 
the  Twelvefold  Curse.  This  liturgy  probably  had  its 
origin  in  the  time  of  the  Judges. 

(e)  The  Law  of  Holiness  (Lev.  17-26). — The  Priestly 
Code  incorporated  within  itself  a  much  older  document, 
known  as  the  Law  of  Holiness  (H).  Although  this 
document  was  more  or  less  rewritten  by  the  author  or 
editor  of  P,  its  original  character  is  still  fairly  distin¬ 
guishable.  Its  date  is  uncertain;  probably  it  belongs  to 
the  last  period  before  the  Captivity. 

(3)  Earliest  Narrative  Portions  of  the  Pentateuch. — 
Doubtless  all  the  narratives  of  Genesis  were  derived  from 
sources  antedating  the  composition  of  the  book.  These 
sources  were  chiefly  oral  tradition,  yet  it  is  quite  possible 
that  both  the  Jahvist  and  Elohist  had  access  to  some  writ¬ 
ten  narratives.  In  one  instance  we  have  an  interesting 
narrative  that  is  almost  surely  based  upon  an  ancient  writ¬ 
ten  document,  perhaps  a  monumental  inscription.  It  is  the 
story  of  Abraham’s  victorious  battle  against  the  armies 
of  the  East,  and  his  meeting  Melchizedek,  King  of  Salem 


126  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


(Gen.  14).  It  is  probable  that  this  passage  represents  a 
rather  free  working  over  of  an  ancient  Canaanitish  me¬ 
morial  writing. 

Such  appear  to  be  the  oldest  materials  in  the  Penta¬ 
teuch,  materials  antedating  the  outstanding  main  written 
sources,  yet  incorporated  in  them.  To  these  main  written 
sources  we  now  turn  our  attention  (in  sections  5-8). 

5.  The  Jahvistic  Source. — The  most  striking  mark  of 
this  source  is  its  habitual  use  of  the  name  Jahweh,  while 
E  more  often  uses  Elohim.  But  this  peculiarity  in  the 
use  of  the  name  Jahweh  is  only  the  most  striking  mark 
of  the  J  source,  it  is  not  its  most  important  characteristic. 
There  are  several  peculiarities  of  language  that  deserve 
notice.  A  few  may  be  mentioned  here.  J  has  “Sinai,” 
not  “Horeb”;  “Israel”  (after  the  birth  of  Benjamin) 
instead  of  “Jacob”;  “Canaanites,”  not  “Amorites”  for 
the  inhabitants  of  Palestine.  There  are  also  many  favor¬ 
ite  words  and  expressions  aside  from  the  names  of  persons 
and  places. 

The  Jahvist  begins  with  the  creation  of  man  in  the  gar¬ 
den  of  Eden,  continues  with  the  entrance  and  growth  of 
sin  and  proceeds  to  touch  in  order  upon  most  of  the  im¬ 
portant  incidents  in  the  traditional  history  of  the  Hebrews. 
From  the  very  beginning  Jahweh  appears  in  very  per¬ 
sonal  relations  with  men,  especially  with  those  who  enjoy 
his  special  favor.  A  separation  of  chosen  ones  begins 
among  the  sons  of  Adam  and  Eve  and  reaches  a  climax  in 
the  election  of  Abraham,  to  whom  the  most  gracious 
promises  are  given.  Abraham’s  seed  shall  be  a  great 
multitude.  Canaan  shall  be  his  possession,  and  in  him  all 
peoples  shall  be  blessed.  There  is  an  election  also  among 
the  decendants  of  Abraham.  Jacob  and  his  family  are 
chosen.  The  coming  of  this  family  into  Egypt  is  impres- 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  127 


sively  told.  Then  follows  the  miraculous  saving  of  the 
chosen  people  out  of  Egypt  by  the  hand  of  Moses  (it  is 
worth  noting  that  there  is  no  mention  of  Aaron  in  J). 
Then  comes  the  giving  of  the  Commandments  on  Mount 
Sinai,  followed  by  the  many  wonderful  events  of  the 
forty  years  in  the  wilderness  until  the  death  of  Moses  on 
the  eve  of  the  entrance  of  Israel  into  Canaan.  The  nar¬ 
rative  of  J,  it  should  be  remarked,  is  continued  also  in 
the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges. 

Everywhere  the  Jahvistic  source  is  characterized  by  a 
very  lively  but  simple  imagination,  an  intense  human  sym¬ 
pathy,  and  a  really  wonderful  narrative  art.  Its  manner 
of  expression  is  very  picturesque;  even  Jahweh’s  actions 
are  portrayed  with  a  simple  dramatic  art.  Jahweh  plants 
a  garden;  he  walks  in  the  garden  in  the  cool  of  the  day; 
he  calls  Adam  to  meet  him.  But  this  simplicity  is  to  be 
ascribed  to  the  poetical  gift  of  the  writer  more  than  to  a 
crudity  of  religious  conceptions.  The  Jahvist’s  religious 
conceptions  are  very  simple,  but  they  are  intensely  per¬ 
sonal  and  ethical.  They  bear  the  prophetic  rather  than 
the  priestly  stamp. 

The  appreciation  of  the  J  source  is  possible  only  as  one 
reads  it  in  some  continuity  and  in  comparison  with  the 
other  component  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.  For  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  introduction  into  this  aspect  of  our  study,  the  fol¬ 
lowing  specimens  of  J  (all  taken  from  Genesis)  will  be 
found  interesting. 

2  Ah-A  :26 — The  creation,  the  garden,  the  entrance  of  sin, 
the  penalties  of  disobedience,  Cain  and  his  descendants. 
9:18  (or  20)— 27 — The  fate  of  Canaan. 

11 :1— 9 — The  dispersal  of  mankind. 

12  (in  the  main) — Abram’s  migration  from  the  East, 

13  (in  the  main) — Abram’s  separation  from  Lot. 


128  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


15  (portions — the  rest  being  from  E) — The  covenant  of 
Jahweh. 

18:1—19:38  (except  19:29  from  P) — The  angelic  guests, 
destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  Lot  and  his 
daughters. 

24 : 1-9 — ^Abraham’s  charge  to  the  servant  whom  he  sends  to 
procure  a  wife  for  Isaac. 

29:2—14 — The  meeting  between  Jacob  and  Rachel. 

It  is  generally  agreed  that  the  J  document  arose  in 
Judah,  for  it  frequently  shows  a  partiality  for  what  per¬ 
tains  to  the  tribe  of  Judah  in  respect  both  of  persons  and 
of  places.  The  time  of  the  composition  is  uncertain,  but 
the  great  majority  of  scholars  hold  it  to  be  somewhere 
about  the  middle  of  the  9th  century  B.  C.  Some  would 
place  it  still  earlier,  even  as  far  back  as  the  reign  of  Solo¬ 
mon  or  David.  The  writing  is  a  unity.  The  author  took 
up  the  various  traditions  of  his  people  and  wrote  them 
out  in  his  own  manner. 

The  Jahvistic  writing  is  a  work  of  real  genius.  Its 
narrative  art  is  perhaps  nowhere  surpassed.  The  author’s 
horizon,  in  spite  of  his  intense  partiality  for  the  people  of 
Israel,  and  for  Judah  in  particular,  is  exceedingly  broad. 
The  unity  of  the  human  race  is  clearly  recognized  and 
the  blessing  of  Israel  means  the  blessing  and  not  the  curs¬ 
ing  of  the  several  families  of  the  earth.  In  religious  depth 
and  earnestness  it  surpasses  the  other  sources  of  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch,  though  its  religious  spirit  is  not  so  conscious  as 
that  of  the  Priestly  Code.  It  breathes  much  of  the  spirit 
of  the  prophets  of  the  next  succeeding  era. 

6.  The  Elohistic  Source. — -The  inquiry  into  this  source 
is  more  difficult  than  with  J.  E  has  been  interwoven  with 
the  other  sources,  especially  with  J,  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  render  its  clean  separation  difficult  and  in  many  places 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  129 


impossible.  Yet  for  the  most  part  the  source  is  fairly 
distinguishable  by  characteristics  of  language  and  relig¬ 
ious  ideals,  and  by  its  special  historical  tradition. 

The  linguistic  peculiarities  of  E  are  numerous  and  well 
marked.  The  following  may  be  specially  noted:  Elohim 
is  the  exclusive  designation  of  Deity  before  the  revelation 
of  Jahweh  at  Sinai,  and  the  preferred  designation  after¬ 
wards;  the  mount  of  God  is  always  Horeb,  not  Sinai;  the 
original  inhabitants  of  Palestine  are  Amorites,  not  Ca- 
naanites;  the  third  patriarch  is  generally  Jacob  rather  than 
Israel. 

Among  the  general  religious  conceptions  of  the  Elohist, 
we  may  note  the  following.  God  is  not  represented,  as  is 
the  case  with  the  Jahvist,  as  a  familiar  figure  in  intimate 
relations  with  men,  but  as  one  who  communicates  with 
men  only  at  important  crises.  He  reveals  himself  most 
often  by  dreams  in  the  night.  Thus,  for  example,  he 
reveals  himself  on  several  occasions  to  Abraham  (see 
Gen.  15:  Iff.;  21:12f. ;  22:1,  3),  and  at  least  three 
times  to  Jacob  (Gen.  28:  12;  31:11;  46:2).  Also  the 
dreams  of  Joseph  (Gen.  37 :5  ff.)  and  even  those  of  the 
kings  of  Gerar  and  Egypt  and  of  the  servants  of  the 
latter  play  an  important  part  in  the  narrative.  When 
there  is  occasion  to  communicate  with  men  by  day,  God 
is  represented  as  speaking  through  his  angel  ‘'out  of 
heaven,”  as  in  the  case  of  Hagar  and  Ishmael  in  their 
distress  (Gen.  21 :17),  and  of  Abraham  on  the  point  of 
slaying  Isaac  (Gen.  22:  11). 

There  are  also  peculiar  characteristics  in  the  historical 
tradition  of  the  Elohist.  The  most  important  of  these  is 
that  the  narrative  begins  with  the  call  of  Abraham  and 
offers  nothing  of  the  earlier  traditions.  The  ancestors  of 


130  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


the  Hebrews,  when  they  ‘'dwelt  of  old  time  on  the  other 
side  of  the  River,”  are  represented  (Josh.  24:2)  as 
serving  other  gods.  In  the  exodus  and  in  the  wanderings 
in  the  wilderness  Aaron  and  Miriam  play  an  important 
role  along  with  Moses. 

The  Elohist,  too,  like  the  Jahvist,  has  his  special  sec¬ 
tional  or  tribal  interest.  He  shows  his  preference  for  the 
northern  tribes  and  localities.  In  E,  for  example,  it  is 
Reuben,  not  Judah,  that  befriends  Joseph  and  rescues  him 
from  death.  But  the  Elohist’s  horizon  is  less  wide  than 
that  of  the  Jahvist.  While  he  is  not  more  intensely 
Israelitish  than  the  Jahvist,  he  has  not  the  latter’s  lively 
interest  in  other  peoples.  Ishmael  and  Esau  appear  as 
individuals  in  the  Elohistic  narrative,  but  their  descend¬ 
ants  do  not  appear.  The  Elohist  is  more  sensitive  than 
the  Jahvist  respecting  the  good  name  of  the  patriarchs: 
the  faults  of  Abraham  and  the  trickeries  of  Jacob  are 
most  frankly  related  in  J,  while  in  E  they  are  glossed 
over  or  excused. 

In  its  literary  aspect,  the  Elohistic  writing  is  strong  and 
fine,  yet  not  equal  to  that  of  the  Jahvist.  Here  and  there 
one  may  note — in  contrast  with  J — a  striving  for  effect, 
or  an  appeal  for  sympathy  with  the  subject  of  a  narra¬ 
tive.  An  examination  of  the  two  modes  of  treatment  is 
found  in  the  two  accounts  of  Hagar.  According  to  J 
(Gen.  16:4-14),  Hagar  is  harshly  dealt  with,  and  is 
angry  and  rebellious  and  flees  of  her  own  choice,  but  she 
is  not  in  grave  trouble.  According  to  E  (Gen.  21 : 9-21) 
she  is  an  outcast  in  the  bitterest  distress,  which  can  be 
relieved  only  by  a  miracle. 

The  characteristics  of  E  may  be  studied  in  the  follow* 
ing  specimen  passages. 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  ISI 


Gen.  15:1-6 — God’s  promise  to  Abram. 

Gen.  20:1-17 — The  seizure  of  Sarah  by  Abimelech  (Com¬ 
pare  with  the  J  narrative,  12:10—20). 

Gen.  40-42  ;  45  (in  the  main) — Joseph  in  Egypt. 

Gen.  48  (in  the  main) — The  sons  of  Joseph. 

Ex.  1:15-22 — The  decree  of  the  king  of  Egypt  to  destroy 
the  male  children  of  the  Hebrews. 

Ex.  2 : 1-10 — The  birth  and  adoption  of  Moses. 

Ex.  20:1-23:19 — The  Decalogue  and  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant. 

Deut.  31:1-8,  14-23;  also  chapters  32  and  33;  also 
34:3-6,  10 — The  closing  scenes  in  the  life  of  Moses. 

While  it  is  beyond  dispute  that  the  Elohistic  writing 
springs  from  the  Northern  Kingdom,  its  date  is  very 
uncertain.  There  are  indications  that  it  is  later  than  J, 
especially  in  the  fact  that  its  references  to  events  con¬ 
nected  with  the  conquest  suggest  a  relatively  remoter  past 
than  is  the  case  with  J.  Some  contend  that  the  writing 
could  not  have  originated  later  than  the  time  of  Solomon. 
Three  reasons  are  offered  in  support  of  this  view :  There 
is  no  allusion  to  the  division  of  the  Kingdom;  Judah  heads 
the  list  of  the  tribes  in  the  account  of  the  division  of  the 
territory  (Josh.  15  :1  ff.)  ;  and  finally  Jerusalem  is  recog¬ 
nized  as  a  sanctuary,  along  with  Bethel  and  Shechem — a 
thing  which,  it  is  claimed,  would  hardly  occur  in  the  case 
of  a  book  written  after  Jeroboam  had  forbidden  his 
people  to  worship  in  Jerusalem.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
must  recognize  the  fact  that  J  and  E  were  united  into  one 
book  (JE),  probably  not  earlier  than  650  B.  C.,  and  by  a 
man  of  Southern  Palestine.  This  Southern  redaction 
might  account  for  the  naming  of  Jerusalem  among  the 
sanctuaries.  Most  modern  critics  place  the  Elohistic 
source  much  later  than  Solomon,  namely,  about  800  B,  C., 


132  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


and  some  would  place  it  even  as  late  as  the  reign  of  Jero¬ 
boam  II  (785-745  B.  C). 

The  interlacing  of  J  and  E  may  be  conveniently 
studied — with  the  help  of  any  modern  commentary — in 
connection  with  the  story  of  Jacob  and  Esau  and  the 
story  of  Joseph. 

7.  The  D enter onomic  Source. — In  the  reign  of  Josiah 
there  was  found  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  about  the 
year  622  B.  C.,  a  book  then  unknown  to  priests,  king  and 
people.  Hilkiah  sent  it  by  the  hand  of  Shaphan  the  scribe 
to  the  king,  who,  after  consulting  with  Huldah  the  proph¬ 
etess,  made  it  the  basis  of  a  vigorous  religious  reform.  It 
was  accepted  by  all  as  the  true  “book  of  the  law,”  or 
“book  of  the  covenant,”  which  had  been  allowed  to  lapse 
into  oblivion.  That  this  book  is  essentially  our  Deuter¬ 
onomy,  and  not  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch  nor  some 
other  book  since  lost,  is  now  universally  recognized. 
Among  the  reasons  for  this  opinion  are  the  following: 
(a)  It  was  a  writing  not  too  long  to  be  read  by  Shaphan 
twice  through  in  one  day — once  in  the  temple  and  again 
before  the  King  (2  Ki.  22:8,  10).  (b)  The  book  is 

called  the  book  of  the  covenant,  a  designation  that  fits 
only  Exodus  20-23  and  Deuteronomy  (see  Deut.  5:2; 
29:  1  and  20;  30:  10).  (c)  But  since  the  nature  of  the 

reform  that  followed  fits  Deuteronomy  rather  than  Exo¬ 
dus  20-23,  we  conclude  that  Deuteronomy  is  meant.  The 
chief  feature  of  the  reform  was  the  centralization  of  wor¬ 
ship  (2  Ki.  23  : 8  ff.;  compare  with  Deut.  12:13;  16:21). 
But  indeed  all  the  other  features  of  the  reform — the 
abolition  of  the  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  put¬ 
ting  away  of  all  that  had  familiar  spirits,  the  celebration 
of  the  Passover  in  the  temple,  and  other  matters — are 
clearly  based  upon  the  D enter onomic  code. 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  133 

The  book  purports  to  be  the  record  of  the  laws  divinely 
given  through  Moses  for  the  future  conduct  of  the  people 
when  they  should  be  established  in  the  Promised  Land. 
Their  application  in  the  wilderness  would  have  been,  for 
the  most  part,  impossible.  They  are,  therefore,  repre¬ 
sented  as  being  given  for  promulgation  only  after  the 
people  should  have  passed  over  the  Jordan.  The  laws 
and  the  needful  accompanying  exhortations  are  given  in 
the  form  of  a  discourse  from  Moses  to  the  people. 

The  present  Deuteronomy  doubtless  comprises  more 
than  the  original  D  source.  Probably  the  basic  writing 
included  4 :  45-49;  5  :  6-21  (the  Decalogue)  ;  6:4—15; 
and  nearly  all  the  matter  in  chapters  12-26. 

The  origin  of  the  book  is  much  in  dispute.  In  its 
present  form  it  probably  represents,  in  the  main,  a  com¬ 
bination  of  D  with  JE.  Shortly  before  the  fall  of  Jeru¬ 
salem  (586  B.  C.)  other  additions  were  made,  no  doubt, 
in  the  process  of  editing  the  various  books  of  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  after  the  Exile.  Our  present  question  has  to  do 
mainly  with  the  origin  of  the  original  D.  The  prevailing 
view  of  modern  critics  is  that  the  book  was  composed  by  a 
group  of  priests  who  were  in  a  measure  under  the  influence 
of  the  great  prophets,  in  the  years  just  before  the  publica¬ 
tion  of  the  book  in  622  B.  C.  According  to  this  view,  the 
book  was  based  largely  upon  approved  legal  and  priestly 
tradition.  In  this  sense  it  was  a  fair  representation  of 
Israel’s  more  ancient  laws;  but  these  critics  held  that  the 
book  itself  was  composed  by  priests  in  the  reign  of  Josiah, 
and  that  it  was,  therefore,  a  forgery,  since  it  was  put  forth 
as  an  ancient  book  only  just  discovered  by  accident  in  the 
course  of  repairing  the  temple.  The  “discovery”  they 
suppose  to  have  been  a  pious  fraud,  designed  to  further 
the  intended  reform.  But  there  is  to-day  a  strong  ten- 


134  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


dency  to  believe  that  the  book  was  in  reality  an  older 
writing  dating  from  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  (about  720- 
686  B.  C.)  and  rediscovered  in  the  time  of  Josiah.  That 
such  a  book  might  have  fallen  into  oblivion  would  not  be 
strange  in  view  of  all  the  evil  practices  and  perversions  of 
the  long  reign  of  Manasseh  (about  686-641  B.  C.)-  At 
all  events,  however,  the  writing  was  not  a  very  ancient 
one  when  it  was  brought  forward  in  622  B.  C.  The 
language  and  the  religious  ideas  belong  to  the  era  of  the 
great  prophets.  It  is  not  necessary  to  assume  a  fraud  in 
relation  to  the  discovery  or  promulgation  of  the  book. 
Whoever  the  writers  were,  they  seem  to  have  written  the 
laws  substantially  as  their  traditions  represented  them. 
Yet  they  recast  and  elaborated  them,  and  composed  the 
accompanying  exhortations  in  keeping  with  what  they 
believed  to  have  been  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  legislation. 
Ancient  Oriental  writers  were  in  the  habit  of  taking  liber¬ 
ties  with  the  names  of  historical  personages  which  would 
not  be  permitted  to-day. 

8.  The  Priestly  Writing. — The  marks  of  this  source 
are  so  plain  that  it  can  be  distinguished  from  the  others 
with  comparative  ease  and  certainty.  The  style  is  formal, 
the  interest  centers  in  ceremony  and  custom,  and  much 
emphasis  is  laid  upon  genealogies  and  the  dignity  of  the 
priestly  class.  The  idea  of  holiness  is  largely  ceremonial. 
Then  there  are  characteristic  linguistic  usages.  In  the 
historical  portions  there  is  a  careful  avoidance  of  the 
anthromorphisms  (conceptions  of  Deity  after  the  analogy 
of  man)  which  are  so  characteristic  of  J.  The  name 
Jahweh  is  avoided  until  the  narrative  reaches  the  point 
where  the  name  is  revealed  to  Moses  at  the  burning  bush. 
But  also  priests  and  sacrifices  and  the  distinction  between 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  135 

clean  and  unclean  are  unmentioned  until  the  time  of  Moses 
is  reached. 

P  is  the  only  source  which  is  found  in  all  the  books  of 
the  Hexateuch.  Like  J,  it  begins  with  an  account  of 
creation,  and  shows  a  dependence  upon  J  for  the  outline 
of  the  history,  but  it  differs  much  from  that  source  in  the 
details  of  the  treatment.  The  entire  history  serves  for  P 
only  as  a  background  or  introduction  to  the  system  of  law 
and  worship. 

The  Priestly  Writing  clearly  bears  throughout  the 
stamp  of  one  mind.  Yet  it  does  not  form  a  perfect  liter^ 
ary  unity.  The  writer  drew  his  materials  from  various 
sources  and  he  was  not  always  at  pains  to  reduce  them  to 
harmony.  Nevertheless,  the  general  tendency  of  the  writ¬ 
ing  is  very  consistent.  There  is  a  perfect  unity  of  stand¬ 
point  and  purpose. 

The  Priestly  Writing  in  its  present  form  doubtless  be¬ 
longs  to  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  It  was  in  458 
B.  C.  that  Ezra,  a  priest  and  “ready  scribe  in  the  law  of 
Moses,  which  Jahweh,  the  God  of  Israel,  had  given,” 
went  up  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem  (Ezra  7:1  ff.).  He 
had  the  law  of  his  God  in  his  hand  (7:  14).  He  pur¬ 
posed  to  inquire  as  to  the  religious  state  of  Jerusalem  and 
Judah,  and  to  instruct  the  people  according  to  the  law 
as  he  knew  it.  In  444  B.  C.  this  law  was  solemnly  read 
and  by  oath  was  acknowledged  and  established  as  binding 
for  the  people  (Neh.  8-10).  Now  the  law  thus  intro¬ 
duced  was  surely  not  a  substitute  for  D  and  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant,  but  a  notable  addition  to  these.  The  writ¬ 
ings  J  and  E  (as  we  have  seen)  had  been  combined  a  good 
while  before  this  (the  result  being  designated  by  scholars 
to-day  as  JE).  Then,  after  the  promulgation  of  D  in  622 
B.  C.,  this  also  was  joined  with  the  others  (JED).  Be- 


136  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


tween  his  arrival  in  Jerusalem  in  458  B.  C.  and  the  solemn 
promulgation  of  the  finished  law  in  444  B.  C.  Ezra  must 
have  combined  the  Priestly  Writing  with  JED,  thus  form¬ 
ing  our  Pentateuch. 

Among  the  most  important  characteristic  sections  of  P 
are  the  following: 

Gen.  1 : 1-2 :4a — The  account  of  creation. 

Gen.  5 — The  first  ten  generations. 

Gen.  6:9-22 — The  ark  and  its  freight 
Gen.  7  and  8  (mixed  with  J). 

Gen.  9:1-7 — The  introduction  of  animal  food, 

Gen.  9:8-17,  28,  29 — The  bow  of  promise. 

Gen.  23 — The  death  of  Sarah. 

Gen.  46 :6-27 — The  descent  into  Egypt. 

Ex.  8,  9,  11  (mixed  with  J  and  E). 

Ex.  12:1-20 — The  Passover. 

Ex.  25-31 — The  Tabernacle,  etc. 

Leviticus  entire  (chapters  17—26  being  the  older  Law  of 
Holiness). 

The  following  observations  will  be  found  illuminating 
as  to  the  general  problem  of  the  Pentateuch,  (a)  There 
is  no  ground  for  assuming  any  additions  to  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  after  444  B.  C.  The  tradition  concerning  the  char¬ 
acter  and  contents  of  the  Torah  are  clear  enough  from 
that  time  on.  (b)  The  prophets  Deutero-Isaiah,  Haggai, 
Zechariah  and  Malachi  know  and  refer  to  the  Deuter- 
onomic  Code,  but  they  betray  no  acquaintance  with  the 
Priestly  Code.  Hence  we  infer  the  late  introduction  of  P. 
(c)  Ezekiel  (whose  prophetic  work  belongs  to  the  early 
portion  of  the  Exile,  about  592-570  B.  C.)  knows  the 
ordinances  of  the  Law  of  Holiness  (H),  but  he  shows  no 
knowledge  of  the  other  features  of  P;  for  example,  the 
office  of  the  High  Priest  is  unknown  to  him.  (d)  Among 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  137 


the  many  reasons  for  recognizing  D  as  older  than  P  is 
the  fact  that  while  D  demands  the  centralization  of  wor¬ 
ship  (which  was  not  brought  about  until  Josiah’s  reform 
after  622  B.  C),  P  views  it  as  a  long-established  fact. 

The  Book  of  the  Law  which  Ezra  (in  458  B.  C.) 
brought  with  him  from  Babylon  could  not  have  been 
composed  by  himself,  for  he  ever  looked  upon  it  with 
reverent  awe  as  something  traditionally  sacred.  But"** 
since  no  such  book  was  brought  back  by  the  first  return¬ 
ing  exiles  in  537  or  536  B.  C.,  we  must  infer  that  the  book 
which  Ezra  had  in  his  possession  took  shape  after  the 
first  return  of  exiles.  Perhaps  about  500  B.  C.  may  be 
assumed  as  an  approximate  date.  Yet  since  we  know  that 
this  Priestly  Writing  incorporated  the  much  older  Law  of 
Holiness  (Lev.  17-26),  we  may  reasonably  infer  that  the 
Priestly  Writing  was  a  growth,  which  included  other  ele¬ 
ments  besides  the  Law  of  Holiness,  elements  which  were 
considerably  earlier  in  their  origin  than  500  B.  C.  It 
was  a  comparatively  new  writing  that  Ezra  brought  with 
him  from  Babylon,  but  it  was  a  writing  that  embodied 
many  ancient  materials.  Apparently  Ezra  and  his  helpers 
were  utterly  sincere  in  their  conviction  that  the  final  intro¬ 
duction  of  this  law  as  the  standard  for  the  people’s  life 
and  worship  signified  a  return  to  the  ancient  lawful  wor¬ 
ship  of  God.  In  their  eyes  the  law  seemed  ancient  even 
though  the  book  was  comparatively  new. 

9.  The  Redactions  of  the  Pentateuch. — Our  previous 
scattered  notices  of  various  editings  of  the  Pentateuch, 
together  with  some  additional  observations,  may  now  be 
gathered  up. 

(1)  A  combination  of  J  and  E  was  made  not  earlier 
than  the  fall  of  Samaria  in  722.  It  was  unquestionably 
made  in  Judah.  The  evidences  of  such  a  combination  are 


138  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

clear  to  the  careful  student.  There  are  seams  and  marks 
of  interlacing  in  a  number  of  places. 

(2)  The  discovery  of  Deuteronomy,  and  the  reform 
under  Josiah  based  upon  its  code  of  laws,  naturally  sug¬ 
gested  the  combination  of  D  with  JE.  Or  rather,  in  the 
first  instance,  of  D  with  E,  since  the  latter  was  closely 
akin  to  D,  and  contained  the  Book  of  the  Covenant.  This 
combination,  DE,  was  probably  completed  before  the 
Captivity. 

(3)  The  redaction  which  combined  JE  with  DE  prob¬ 
ably  took  place  in  the  Exile.  The  period  of  the  Exile 
seems  to  have  witnessed  not  a  little  work  in  the  way  of 
copying,  revision  and  editing  the  older  literature. 

(4)  The  last  redaction  by  Ezra  and  the  scribes  asso¬ 
ciated  with  him  resulted  in  the  Pentateuch  (and  even  the 
Hexateuch)  as  it  now  stands.  It  is  of  interest  to  note 
that  the  Samaritans  established  their  divergent  form  of 
the  Pentateuch  about  430  B.  C.  This  Samaritan  Penta¬ 
teuch  is  still  preserved,  probably  with  only  slight  altera¬ 
tions,  in  a  very  ancient  manuscript  which  can  be  seen  to¬ 
day  at  Nablus  (Shechem). 

The  Pentateuch  (Torah)  formed  the  basis  of  Judaism, 
that  is,  of  the  Jewish  national  system  developed  after  the 
Exile.  In  the  estimation  of  the  people  the  Torah  held  a 
higher  place  than  the  Prophets  or  the  Psalms. 

10.  The  Prophets. — We  have  seen  that  the  second  divi¬ 
sion  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  bore  the  title  of  The  Proph¬ 
ets.  The  Prophets  were  divided  into  two  groups,  the 
Former  and  the  Latter  Prophets.  The  books  of  the 
“Former  Prophets”  are  the  histories  of  the  Hebrew  nation 
from  the  time  of  the  Conquest  to  the  Babylonian  Exile 
(excepting  Chronicles  and  Ruth),  and  comprise,  there¬ 
fore,  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings. 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  139 

The  ^Tatter  Prophets”  are  the  prophets  in  the  stricter 
sense. 

(a)  The  Former  Prophets  (the  Histories). — To  call 
these  books  of  history  prophetic  writings  seems  strange 
to  us.  The  Jewish  rabbis,  not  knowing  who  wrote  them, 
but  recognizing  in  them  great  religious  value,  naturally 
enough  ascribed  them  to  the  prophets.  There  is  no  ground 
for  accepting  the  opinion  of  the  rabbis  on  this  point. 
Yet  there  is  a  certain  fitness  in  classifying  them  with  the 
Prophets,  for  the  history  is  written  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  prophets.  It  is  history  written  to  show  God’s  deal¬ 
ings  with  men,  especially  with  the  people  of  Israel.  The 
glory  of  these  books  lies  not  in  their  historical  lore,  nor 
in  their  literary  art,  but  in  their  interpretation  of  the  pur¬ 
poses  of  God  in  history;  and  just  such  interpretation  is 
the  essence  of  prophecy. 

The  writers  of  these  books,  in  gathering  their  mate¬ 
rials,  used  various  sources.  Here  we  find  no  such  thing 
as  “inspired  history”  in  the  sense  that  God  informed  the 
writers  respecting  the  events  to  be  recorded.  The  writers 
took  the  materials  of  history  and  tradition  that  were  at 
hand.  The  element  of  inspiration  in  their  writing  is  to 
be  found  only  in  the  religious  interpretation  of  the  his¬ 
tory.  The  writers  used  written  as  well  as  oral  sources; 
indeed  frequent  mention  is  made  of  written  sources. 

In  respect  to  the  question  of  literary  origins,  it  is  cer¬ 
tain  that  Joshua  belongs  with  the  Pentateuch  and  is  made 
up  from  the  same  sources.  All  four  of  the  documents  of 
the  Pentateuch  are  in  evidence  also  in  Joshua.  The  final 
redaction  of  Joshua  mpst  have  taken  place  shortly  after 
the  completion  of  the  Pentateuch.  If  all  these  books  had 
been  put  forth  together,  it  seems  certain  that  the  Samari¬ 
tans,  who  separated  from  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Ezra, 


140  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


and  carried  with  them  their  Pentateuch,  would  have  had 
a  Hexateuch  instead;  for  doubtless  they  took  with  them 
all  the  books  that  w^ere  available  at  the  time.  Hence  we 
infer  that  the  separation  of  the  Samaritans  from  Judaism 
took  place  before  the  final  publication  of  Joshua. 

The  Book  of  the  Judges  gives  the  history  of  the  chil¬ 
dren  of  Israel  from  the  death  of  Joshua  to  Samuel.  It 
clearly  falls  into  three  parts :  ( 1 )  A  general  introduction 
(1 :  1 — 2:  5),  probably  from  a  Judean  source,  relates  in 
a  swift  and  summary  fashion  how  the  tribes  west  of  the 
Jordan  took  possession  of  the  districts  assigned  to  them, 
yet  without  obtaining  full  mastery  over  the  Canaanites, 
who  still  held  most  of  the  cities.  (2)  The  main  narrative 
of  the  book  (2:6 — 16:31)  begins — in  immediate  con¬ 
tinuation  of  the  narrative  of  Joshua — with  a  summary  of 
the  whole  period  (2 :  6 — 3  :  6)  :  after  the  death  of  Joshua 
the  people  fell  away  from  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and  be¬ 
took  themselves  to  the  gods  of  the  Canaanites ;  to  punish 
and  bring  them  back  Jehovah  delivers  them  into  the  hand 
of  oppressors  from  the  surrounding  nations;  the  people 
alternately  repent  and  lapse  again ;  but  whenever  the  people 
cried  unto  Jehovah,  he  raised  up  for  them  champions  and 
deliverers.  The  narrative  then  proceeds  to  give  an  ac¬ 
count  of  these  deliverers  or  “judges”  (3:7 — 16:31). 
All  told,  there  are  twelve  judges  (some  would  reckon  in 
three  other  leaders,  making  fifteen).  The  narrative  deals 
amply  with  five  of  the  judges  (Ehud,  Barak,  Gideon, 
Jephthah,  Samson),  more  briefly  with  the  rest.  (3) 
Chapters  17-21  are  a  sort  of  appendix,  made  up  of  narra¬ 
tives  belonging  to  the  time  of  the  Judges. 

The  second  part  of  the  book  shows  kinship  with  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy,  but  there  are  also  materials  from 
J  and  E.  The  book  is  accordingly  a  growth  extending 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  141 


from  a  very  early  period  until  its  virtual  completion 
shortly  before,  or  after,  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  in  586  B.  C. 

A  careful  reading  of  the  Book  of  Judges  reveals  many 
matters  of  significance  for  our  understanding  of  the  his¬ 
tory  of  Israel.  In  the  first  place  we  observe  (as  we  did 
in  Joshua)  two  divergent  traditions  regarding  the  time 
of  the  completion  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan.  One  ac¬ 
count  makes  the  conquest  miraculously  swift  and  con¬ 
clusive.  The  other  clearly  recognizes  that  for  a  very  long 
time  it  was  far  from  complete.  Another  feature  is  the 
rather  artificial  chronology  of  the  Deuteronomist  (so 
many  things  are  forty  or  twenty  years  in  duration). 
A  feature  of  particular  importance  is  that  in  many 
passages  the  religious  life  and  practice  appear  so  very 
crude,  while  in  others  a  much  more  advanced  stage  is 
assumed.  This  is  one  of  the  obvious  proofs  that  the 
book  is  made  up  of  several  strata  of  widely  separated  ages. 
Whoever  attentively  reads  Judges  and  compares  its  life 
with  that  presupposed  in  Leviticus  will  certainly  perceive 
that  the  elaborate  ceremonialism  of  the  Priestly  Code  is 
unknown  in  the  period  of  the  Judges  and  even  of  the  time 
of  the  writing  of  the  book. 

Regarded  as  literature  the  book  of  Judges  is  somewhat 
unequal,  but  it  contains  some  admirable  narratives,  as 
the  stories  of  Gideon  and  Samson,  and  the  fine  Song  of 
Deborah. 

That  the  Book  of  Samuel — for  it  is  properly  one  book — 
was  not  written  by  Samuel  himself  is  evident.  His  death 
is  recounted  at  length  in  1  Sam.  25.  The  chief  personages 
are  Samuel,  Saul,  and  especially  David.  The  book  begins 
with  a  fragment  of  a  delightful  history  of  the  childhood 
and  youth  of  Samuel  (1  Sam.  1-3).  It  then  takes  up 
the  thread  of  the  history  of  Israel  where  it  was  broken 


142  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


off  at  the  close  of  Judges  16.  Samuel  appears  as  the  last 
and  greatest  of  the  judges,  and  the  only  one  of  the  num¬ 
ber  whose  influence  extended  over  all  the  tribes.  He 
prepared  the  way  for  a  united  people.  Before  his  public 
career  begins,  Israel  has  been  subjugated  by  the  Philis¬ 
tines  and  the  ark  has  been  captured.  The  liberation  of 
Israel  begins  under  Samuel  (Ch.  7),  but  is  fully  accom¬ 
plished  under  Saul,  whom  Samuel  had  anointed  to  be 
king,  and  whose  reign  until  his  rejection  is  described  in 
Chapters  8-15.  The  remainder  of  his  reign,  together  with 
the  life  of  David  as  the  object  of  Sauhs  jealous  hatred, 
is  related  in  Chapters  16-31.  In  2  Sam.  we  have  first 
the  account  of  David’s  tribal  kingdom  with  the  capital 
at  Hebron  (5:6 — 20:26).  The  remaining  four  chap¬ 
ters  of  the  book  contain  lists,  songs  and  narratives  per¬ 
taining  to  the  reign  of  David. 

The  book  of  Samuel  is  based  upon  written  sources  and 
good  oral  traditions.  Every  attentive  reader  will,  how¬ 
ever,  note  that  two  lines  of  tradition  are  interlaced.  Two 
attitudes  toward  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  are  in 
I  evidence.  According  to  1  Sam.  9:  1 — 10:  16  and  11:1- 
15,  Samuel,  the  seer,  is  divinely  led  to  anoint  Saul  to  be 
king,  in  order  that  he  may  free  Israel  from  the  yoke  of  the 
Philistines.  According  to  1  Sam.  8,  and  10:  17-24,  the 
Philistines  are  already  subdued,  and  the  judge  Samuel, 
against  his  will,  yields  to  the  entreaties  of  the  people  to 
have  a  king.  But  in  spite  of  some  such  discrepancies  the 
Book  of  Samuel  as  a  whole  must  be  regarded  as  a  source 
of  historical  knowledge  unsurpassed  for  its  age.  Eduard 
Meyer  writes  thus  of  the  older  source  of  the  book  of 
Samuel :  ‘Tt  is  astonishing  that  such  a  piece  of  historical 
literature  was  possible  at  that  time  in  Israel.  It  stands 
far  above  everything  else  of  ancient  Oriental  historical 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  143 


writing  that  we  know.’’  Of  the  two  main  sources,  the 
older  is  by  far  the  clearer  and  surer  in  regard  to  the  out¬ 
ward  course  of  events,  but  the  younger  has  a  fine  prophetic 
interpretation  of  the  history.  In  literary  style  the  book  is 
peculiarly  fine.  As  to  the  age  of  the  book,  the  oldest 
source  seems  to  belong  to  a  period  not  long  after  the  death 
of  David.  The  writer  was  probably  not  a  contemporary 
of  David’s,  yet  the  freshness  and  vividness  of  the  remi¬ 
niscences  indicate  that  he  received  them  directly  from 
those  who  did  know  David  personally.  The  book  in  essen¬ 
tially  its  present  form  may  be  dated  in  the  eighth  century, 
with  a  final  redaction  after  the  Captivity. 

The  Books  of  the  Kings,  like  those  of  Samuel,  were 
originally  one  book.  Indeed,  Samuel  and  Kings  stand  in 
very  close  relation  to  each  other.  The  one  was  the  sequel 
of  the  other  and  was  in  no  small  measure  derived  from 
the  same  sources.  The  oldest  source  is  designated  as  K, 
and  is  probably  not  only  identical  with  the  oldest  source 
in  Samuel,  but  possibly  it  is  from  the  same  hand  as  the 
J  document.  If  this  surmise  is  correct,  it  would  argue 
that  J  is  even  older  than  850  B.  C. ;  the  oldest  source  of 
Samuel  and  the  opening  section  of  Kings  may  belong  to 
the  reign  of  Solomon.  However  this  may  be,  the  Book 
of  Kings  as  a  whole  must  be  dated  after  the  end  of  King 
Jehoiachin’s  imprisonment  in  Babylon,  for  it  brings  the 
narrative  down  to  this  point.  The  book  is  based  upon 
various  documents.  Above  all,  the  “Chronicles  of  the 
Kings”  were  often  referred  to  in  the  book  itself;  but 
there  are  also  other  sources.  The  grand  narrative  of 
Elijah,  for  example,  is  based  upon  some  writing  quite 
apart  from  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings.  It  is  one  of  the 
finest  examples  of  narrative  art  in  all  literature.  Like 


144  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

all  other  Hebrew  literature,  the  Book  of  Kings  was  re¬ 
vised  and  edited  after  the  Exile. 

The  Book  of  the  Kings  constitutes  one  of  the  most 
valuable  and  illuminating  portions  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Not  only  is  it  for  the  most  part  historically  trustworthy, 
but  its  spirit  is  intensely  religious.  But  the  religious 
interpretation  has  not  distorted  the  narrative.  The  book 
is  a  condensed  history  from  the  standpoint  of  the  national 
religion,  and  it  should  be  read  with  constant  reference  to 
what  is  known  of  contemporary  history. 

b.  The  Latter  Prophets  were  reckoned  by  the  Jews  as 
four  books,  viz.,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  Book 
of  the  Twelve  (now  known,  on  account  of  their  com¬ 
parative  brevity,  as  the  Minor  Prophets). 

There  were  prophets  in  Israel  long  before  there  were 
prophetic  writings.  Throughout  the  history  of  Hebrew 
prophecy,  the  prophet  was  primarily  a  man  of  speech, 
and  often  of  action,  rather  than  a  maker  of  books.  There 
is  no  hint  that  Elijah  or  Elisha  wrote  anything;  and  when, 
a  century  later,  the  prophets  Amos  and  Hosea  began  to 
write,  the  change  was  apparenty  due  in  part  to  the  hin¬ 
drances  to  the  freedom  of  speech.  In  the  case  of  Amos, 
it  seems  clear  that  it  was  only  after  free  speech  had  been 
denied  him  that  he  wrote  out  the  substance  of  his  sermons 
in  a  book.  Hebrew  prophecy  developed  from  crude  and 
rather  low  beginnings.  In  the  earlier  stages,  the  prophet 
was  essentially  a  soothsayer,  a  resolver  of  mysteries;  but 
at  length  prophecy  became  an  ethical  and  spiritual  thing; 
not  a  disclosing  of  worldly  matters  concerning  which  men 
sought  information,  but  an  interpretation  of  the  mind  of 
God. 

Amos  was  the  earliest  prophet  to  write  a  book.  Indeed, 
the  prophecy  of  Amos  is  the  earliest  of  the  books  of  the 


^  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  146 

Old  Testament  as  we  now  have  them.  Other  books  con¬ 
tain  far  older  materials  than  Amos,  but  in  their  present 
form  they  are  of  a  later  date.  This  great  prophet  was  a 
herdsman  of  Tekoa  in  Judah,  but  his  prophecy  relates  to 
the  Northern  Kingdom,  which  he  seems  to  have  visited 
in  the  conduct  of  his  business.  The  date  of  his  public 
labors  is  about  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  B.  C.,  in 
the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II.;  it  cannot  be  earlier  than  760 
nor  later  than  746  B.  C. 

A  fine  passage  in  Amos  (7 :  10-17)  describes  the  im¬ 
pression  made  by  the  prophet’s  appearance  in  Bethel. 
The  chief  priest  at  Bethel  was  not  minded  to  tolerate  such 
denunciations.  With  studied  expressions  of  scorn  he 
bids  Amos  be  gone.  “O  seer,  be  gone,  go  back  to  your 
land  of  Judah;  there  make  your  living  by  your  prophesy- 
ings.  But  prophesy  no  more  at  Bethel,  for  here  is  a 
royal  temple  and  a  royal  residence.”  With  splendid  indig¬ 
nation  Amos  replies :  ‘T  am  no  prophet  by  trade,  I  belong 
to  no  prophetic  order;  I  am  a  herdsman  and  a  dresser  of 
sycamore  figs.  Jehovah  took  me  from  following  the 
flock,  and  Jehovah  bade  me.  Go  prophesy  against  my 
people  Israel.  So  then,  hear  the  word  of  Jehovah!” 

Hosea  belongs  to  the  same  period.  His  public  appear¬ 
ance  as  prophet  cannot  well  be  placed  more  than  ten  years 
after  that  of  Amos.  Like  the  herdsman  of  Tekoa,  he,  too, 
prophesied  in  the  Northern  Kingdom,  but,  unlike  the 
former,  he  was  a  subject  of  that  kingdom.  Intellectually, 
morally  and  religiously,  Amos  is  to  be  placed  on  a  level 
with  Isaiah.  If  Hosea  is  intellectually  less  vigorous  than 
Amos,  he  is  his  superior  in  the  profound  appreciation  of 
the  quality  of  the  Divine  mercy. 

The  mission  of  both  was  to  denounce  the  sins  of  the 
nation  and  to  win  the  people  to  a  repentance  in  the  fear 


146  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


of  Jehovah.  The  specific  individual  appeal  of  prophecy 
came  out  more  clearly  at  a  later  timfe.  Amos  is  a  prophet 
of  national  righteousness,  while  Hosea,  though  no  less 
earnest  in  his  warnings  than  Amos,  wonderfully  em¬ 
phasizes  God’s  yearning  love  and  his  desire  to  forgive. 
In  Amos  we  meet  with  a  complete  monotheistic  faith  and 
a  grand  conception  of  the  all-comprehending  providence 
of  God.  Some  scholars  even  hold  that  Amos  was  the 
first  man  of  his  people  to  rise  to  the  full  height  of  mono¬ 
theism.  This,  however,  is  improbable,  for  Amos  nowhere 
sets  forth  his  conception  of  God  as  something  new  in 
Israel. 

Just  a  little  later  than  Amos  and  Hosea  comes  Isaiah  of 
Jerusalem.  He  prophesied  during  a  period  of  about  40 
years,  from  740  B.  C.,  in  the  reigns  of  Uzziah,  Jotham, 
Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of  Judah.  In  respect  of 
literary  form  Isaiah  must  be  ranked  as  the  greatest  of  the 
prophets.  Nothing  in  literature  surpasses  some  of  the 
finest  passages  in  his  writings.  In  their  religious  aspect 
his  prophecies  are  not  superior  to  those  of  Amos  and 
Hosea,  and  not  equal  to  those  of  Jeremiah.  Isaiah  is  the 
statesman  prophet.  He  appeals  not  only  to  the  people, 
but  also  directly  to  the  kings. 

The  Book  of  Isaiah,  unlike  those  of  Amos  and  Hosea, 
is  not  a  unity.  Chapters  40-66  are  the  work  of  one  or 
more  later  prophets.  Even  some  of  the  first  thirty-nine 
chapters  are  from  later  hands.  The  genuine  portions  of 
Isaiah  are  so  charactertistic  that  there  can  be  little  reason 
for  doubting  that  it  was  only  by  some  accident  or  mis¬ 
understanding  that  the  writings  of  the  later  prophets, 
which  are  so  different  in  style,  came  to  be  joined  with 
the  prophecy  of  Isaiah.  Isaiah  deals  with  contemporary 
affairs  in  the  most  direct  and  concrete  manner.  Every- 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  147 


thing  centers  in  Jerusalem  and  in  the  affairs  of  state.  The 
background  of  chapters  40-55  is  not  that  of  Isaiah’s  time, 
but  that  of  the  Babylonian  Captivity.  The  background 
of  the  remaining  chapters  (56-66)  is  the  struggle  to  re¬ 
build  and  reestablish  Jerusalem  after  the  Exile.  The 
writer  of  chapters  40-55  is  now  known  as  “Deutero- 
Isaiah,”  while  chapters  56-66  are  now  commonly  re¬ 
ferred  to  as  “Trito-Isaiah.”  The  style  of  Isaiah  of  Jeiu- 
salem  is  wonderfully  swift,  vigorous  and  vivid,  while 
the  style  of  Deutero-Isaiah  is  smooth  and  flowing,  show¬ 
ing  always  a  quiet  but  lofty  dignity. 

Micah  belongs  to  the  same  period  as  Isaiah.  '  In  the 
religious  aspect  he  does  not  fall  below  the  level  of  Isaiah. 
His  style,  too,  is  noble.  Nothing  of  its  kind  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  finer  than  his  condemnation  of  priestly  cere¬ 
monialism  in  6 :  6-8 :  “Wherewith  shall  I  come  before 
Jehovah?  .  .  .  He  hath  told  thee;  O  man,  what  to  do. 
And  what  doth  Jehovah  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly 
and  to  love  mercy  and  to  walk  humbly  before  thy  God?” 

These  four  prophets  of  the  8th  century  represent  the 
first  great  period  of  Hebrew  prophecy.  Another  grand 
figure  appears  about  a  century  later  in  the  person  of 
Jeremiah.  If  this  great  prophet  falls  below  Isaiah  in 
literary  skill,  he  may  be  regarded  as  the  greatest  of  all 
the  prophets  in  the  depth  of  his  religious  insight  and  con¬ 
viction.  He  began  his  public  work  in  626  B.  C.,  and  he 
lived  until  after  the  beginning  of  the  Captivity  in  586 
B.  C.  He  was  not  carried  away  among  the  captives  into 
Babylon,  but  remained  in  Judea,  hoping  to  be  able  to  help 
and  comfort  the  remnant  of  his  people.  Imprisoned  for 
a  short  time  at  Ramah,  he  went,  upon  his  release,  to 
Gedaliah  the  governor  in  Mizpah,  to  help  him  and  the 
people  as  best  he  might.  Soon,  however,  Gedaliah  is 


148  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


murdered  by  usurpers,  and  a  new  fear  falls  upon  the 
people.  Many  flee  into  Egypt  against  the  warning  of 
Jeremiah,  and  they  take  the  aged  prophet  with  them.  Of 
his  work  in  Egypt  we  know  very  little.  The  gloomy,  or 
at  least  obscure,  close  of  his  career  is  of  a  piece  with 
nearly  all  that  went  before.  It  was  as  a  very  young  man 
— “a  child'’  he  called  himself — that  he  began  to  prophesy 
in  Anathoth,  a  village  a  little  distance  north  of  Jerusalem. 
Here  he  had  meagre  success,  but  not  a  little  persecution. 
In  Jerusalem  he  exerts  considerable  influence  during  the 
reign  of  Josiah,  but  with  the  accession  of  Jehoiakim  be¬ 
gan  a  martyrdom  that  lasted  as  long  as  we  have  an  account 
of  the  course  of  his  life.  Because  of  his  bold  warning 
that  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  would  be  destroyed  like  the 
ancient  sanctuary  at  Shiloh  he  is  accused  of  blasphemy. 
The  priests  were  resolved  on  his  death,  but  the  laity  saved 
him  in  his  extreme  need.  Nevertheless,  for  several  years 
the  prophet  was  forbidden  to  enter  the  temple.  It  is  now 
that  he  betakes  himself  to  writing.  It  is  prophecy  full  of 
solemn  warning  that  he  writes.  His  helper  and  scribe, 
Baruch,  is  sent  to  read  the  book  before  the  people  on  a 
feast  day.  It  makes  a  great  impression  upon  them.  Then 
the  book  is  taken  to  King  Jehoiakim  and  read  before  him. 
The  King  angrily  and  contemptuously  burns  the  book 
(ch.  36),  but  Jeremiah  proceeds  at  once  to  dictate  it  afresh 
to  his  scribe.  In  597,  however,  Nebuchadnezzar  actually 
comes  against  Jerusalem.  Jeremiah  renews  his  warnings, 
and  for  this  cause  is  accused  of  treachery  and  cast  into 
prison.  But  King  Zedekiah — it  is  he  that  is  now  upon  the 
throne — is  a  weak  man,  who  both  seeks  to  terrorize  the 
imprisoned  prophet  and  yet  secretly  communicates  with 
him  in  order  to  learn  what  the  prophet  will  predict.  Thus 
is  Jeremiah  under  persecution  until  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  149 


in  586  B.  C.  No  other  prophet  suffered  so  manifold  per¬ 
secutions  as  he.  He  endured  his  sufferings  with  much 
fortitude.  Though  a  man  of  great  compassion,  he  should 
not  be  described  as  a  “weeping  prophet.”  This  popular 
designation  is  due  to  the  erroneous  ascription  of  the  Book 
of  Lamentations  to  Jeremiah. 

The  composition  of  the  book  of  Jeremiah  is  in  part  de¬ 
scribed  in  the  book  itself.  The  chief  portion  is  the  re¬ 
written  roll  of  that  which  had  been  burned  by  Jehoiakim. 
Other  prophecies  and  the  historical  portions  were  added 
later.  Old  Testament  scholars  attempt  to  distinguish 
three  elements  in  the  book :  ( 1 )  The  portions  that  sprang 
directly  from  Jeremiah  (written  by  Baruch  at  the  proph¬ 
et’s  dictation)  ;  (2)  the  portions  (chiefly  narrative)  writ¬ 
ten  by  Baruch ;  (3)  a  number  of  later  additions.  The  ma¬ 
terials  of  the  book  are  not  arranged  with  perfect  clearness 
and  consistency. 

Two  other  books  of  prophecy,  namely,  Zephaniah  and 
Nahum,  belong — at  least  in  their  main  substance — in  this 
period. 

With  Jeremiah  the  first  great  period  of  Hebrew  litera¬ 
ture  closes.  The  Captivity  causes  a  great  change  in  the 
life  of  the  people  and  gives  a  new  turn  to  Hebrew  litera¬ 
ture.  In  this  period  we  have,  as  yet,  no  Bible  in  the  sense 
of  a  fixed  list  of  acknoweldged  writings.  Certain  great 
writings  are  there,  and  they  are  reverenced  and  used  by 
the  people ;  especially  the  Book  of  the  Law  known  as  D 
has  acquired  a  special  authority;  but  the  gathering  to¬ 
gether  and  canonizing  of  the  Scriptures  belongs  to  the 
period  after  the  Exile, 


Chapter  X 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT :  LATER  PERIOD 

1.  Prophecies. 

The  Book  of  Ezekiel  represents  the  beginning  of  a  new 
tendency  in  the  religious  history  of  Israel.  Ezekiel  was 
one  of  the  priests  of  Jerusalem  and  was  carried  off  to 
Babylon  with  King  Jehoiachin  in  the  “first  captivity,” 
the  deportation  of  597  B.  C.,  and  his  book  was  written 
from  the  Captivity.  It  was  the  policy  of  Nebuchadnez¬ 
zar  at  the  first  conquest  of  Judah,  to  remove  a  sufficient 
number  of  the  upper  classes  of  the  people  to  insure  the 
quiet  subjection  of  the  remainder.  He  made  Zedekiah, 
an  uncle  of  Jehoiachin,  king  in  the  latter’s  stead,  and 
hoped  for  quiet  in  Judah.  But  after  some  ten  years  Zed¬ 
ekiah  revolted,  and  the  armies  of  Babylon  a  second  time 
besieged  Jerusalem.  The  city  was  completely  overthrown 
and  a  great  mass  of  the  people  taken  into  captivity  in 
586  B.  C. 

Ezekiel’s  prophecy  falls  into  two  parts.  In  the  period 
between  597  and  586  B.  C.  the  Jews  in  Babylonia  and  the 
Jews  at  home  were  so  persuaded  of  the  inviolability  of  the 
holy  city  that  they  would  not  believe  that  destruction 
awaited  them.  Many  of  those  who  had  been  deported 
even  cherished  the  idea  that  Nebuchadnezzar  would  grow 
weary  of  the  ministry  of  those  whom  he  had  appointed 
to  rule  in  Jerusalem,  and  would  restore  the  king  and  the 

150 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  151 


princes  and  leaders  whom  he  was  holding  in  captivity. 
In  this  period  Ezekiel  prophesies  the  downfall  of  Jeru¬ 
salem.  But  his  word  is  not  heeded.  As  soon,  however, 
as  the  destruction  of  the  city  is  an  accomplished  fact,  the 
tone  of  the  prophecy  is  altered.  Up  to  the  moment  of 
the  catastrophe  he  had  combated  the  delusive  hope  of  the 
people;  henceforth  he  combats  their  despair.  The  first 
part  of  the  book  is  all  warning;  the  second  is  full  of 
comfort  and  promise. 

The  analysis  of  the  book  is  very  simple.  After  an 
introduction  (chapters  1-3),  which  recounts  the  call  and 
consecration  of  the  prophet,  comes  the  first  part  of  the 
prophecies  (chapters  4-33),  which  may  be  entitled:  The 
Historical  Israel  and  the  Neighboring  Peoples.  It  is  full 
of  threats  and  warnings.  Chapters  4-24  deal  with  Israel ; 
chapters  25-32  with  other  peoples ;  chapter  33  with  the 
watchman’s  call  to  repentance  and  the  arrival  of  the  news 
of  Jerusalem’s  fall.  The  second  part  of  the  prophecy  may 
be  entitled:  The  Future  Israel. 

It  is  thought  that  the  prophet’s  warnings  against  Jeru¬ 
salem  ceased  for  the  two  years  of  suspense  in  which  her 
final  doom  is  most  imminent.  In  these  two  years  we  may 
place  the  warnings  against  other  nations.  But  no  sooner 
has  the  doom  fallen  upon  the  devoted  city  than  the  prophet 
begins  his  ministry  of  encouragement. 

A  marked  feature  of  the  Book  of  Ezekiel  are  the 
visions  and  the  elaborate  symbolism.  These  visions  are 
bold,  ample,  and  full  of  significant  detail.  In  no  other 
Old  Testament  book  is  the  element  of  the  ecstatic  vision 
so  prominent. 

More  than  any  other  prophet  Ezekiel  combined  the 
prophetic  and  the  priestly  point  of  view.  Born  and 
reared  as  a  priest,  yet  open  to  the  divine  spirit  of  prophecy, 


152  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


he  represented  a  conception  of  the  priestly  function  that 
was  free  from  mere  formalism.  No  prophet  had  a  truer 
conception  of  the  inward  nature  of  holiness.  He  was  the 
prophet  of  individualism :  “The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall 
die.’’ 

The  Book  of  Ezekiel  shows  none  of  the  marks  of  com¬ 
pilation  and  amplification  which  are  conspicuous  in  Isaiah 
and  Jeremiah.  We  have  the  book  substantially  as  it  came 
from  the  author’s  hand.  The  style  is  unequal.  At  times 
it  is  vigorous  and  even  eloquent;  more  generally  it  is 
rather  slow.  The  imagination  is  abundant,  but  it  is  not 
always  well  restrained,  nor  in  the  best  taste. 

We  have  already  mentioned  five  of  the  twelve  Minor 
Prophets.  The  remaining  prophets — at  least  for  the  most 
part — are  post-exilic.  Concerning  the  dates  of  some  of 
these  books  there  can  be  no  certainty.  Some  of  them, 
however,  can  be  accurately  or  at  least  approximately 
dated.  In  some  cases  there  are  very  clear  historical  allu¬ 
sions  in  the  books  themselves,  and  our  knowledge  of  con¬ 
temporary  history  enables  us  to  fix  the  date.  Haggai  is 
specifically  and  carefully  dated.  The  prophet  received  his 
revelations  in  the  second  year  of  Darius,  i.e.,  520  B.  C. 
His  prophecies  turn  about  two  points:  it  is  the  time  to 
rebuild  the  temple,  and  the  Messianic  era  is  almost  at 
hand. 

The  prophecy  of  Zechariah  falls  into  two  parts. 
Zechariah,  a  priest,  was  a  contemporary  of  Haggai’s. 
The  first  eight  chapters  of  the  book  are  genuine  and  may 
be  dated  about  520-518  B.  C.  The  second  part  belongs 
to  a  much  later  date,  perhaps  about  the  middle  of  the 
third  century  B.  C. 

The  last  book  of  our  Old  Testament,  Malachi,  is  cer¬ 
tainly  far  from  the  latest  in  time.  Allusions  to  the  con- 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  153 


ditions  of  the  time  (e.g.,  Mai.  1:8,  10;  3:1,  10)  point 
to  a  time  shortly  before  the  reform  under  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah,  or  about  450  B.  C. 

The  prophecy  of  Obadiah  is  very  brief,  but  the  critical 
questions  related  to  it  are  not  simple.  Portions  of  the 
book  clearly  refer  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  but  verses 
15-21  seem  to  be  considerably  later  (post-exilic). 

The  Book  of  Jonah  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  of 
the  Minor  Prophets.  Some  scholars  insist  that  the  book 
should  not  be  classified  with  the  prophets.  It  is  said  that 
the  only  ground  for  such  classification  is  the  fact  that  the 
book  is  a  narrative  about  a  prophet.  At  all  events  the 
justification  of  the  traditional  classification  of  the  book 
does  not  lie  in  its  authorship  by  Jonah.  The  book  does 
not  purport  to  originate  with  Jonah.  Its  form  is  wholly 
unlike  that  of  the  other  prophetical  books.  From  the  first 
word  to  the  last  it  is  a  story  (though  a  psalm  is  incor¬ 
porated  in  the  narrative).  But  since  it  is  a  story  designed 
to  teach  a  lofty  truth  concerning  the  character  of  God,  it 
is  of  the  spirit  of  prophecy.  For  this  reason'  and  no  other, 
it  is  fitting  to  classify  it  as  a  book  of  prophecy.  (It  may 
also  be  called  a  Midrashic  writing.) 

The  hero  of  the  story  is  an  historical  personage  (see 
2  Ki.  14:25).  At  all  events,  however,  the  book  was 
written  long  after  the  destruction  of  Nineveh;  and  the 
incidents  of  the  book  are  for  the  most  part  invented  as 
the  vehicle  of  a  great  religious  message.  From  every 
point  of  view  the  Book  of  Jonah  is  one  of  the  loveliest 
pearls  of  Jewish  literature.  Its  universalistic  outlook  in 
opposition  to  the  exclusiveness  of  post-exilic  Judaism, 
and  its  childlike  faith  in  the  merciful  Father  of  all  men, 
who  has  compassion  also  upon  the  beasts,  make  the  book 
very  touching  and  impressive. 


154  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

The  date  of  Habakkuk  is  uncertain.  Recent  opinion  is 
inclined  to  place  it  near  the  end  of  the  fourth  century. 

Such,  in  brief,  is  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  prophetical 
literature.  There  is  nothing  in  the  extra-Biblical  re¬ 
ligions  to  be  compared  with  it.  Only  the  actual  self¬ 
revelation  of  the  living  God  can  account  for  Hebrew 
prophecy. 

2.  The  Holy  Writings  (Kethubim). 

a.  The  Psalter  is  Israel’s  Book  of  Praise.  More  spe¬ 
cifically,  it  is  the  Song-Book  of  the  Second  Temple.  But 
while  the  collection  and  arrangement  are  post-exilic,  some 
of  the  individual  psalms  are  probably  very  much  earlier 
than  the  Exile.  It  is  possible  that  in  respect  of  the  time 
of  their  origin  the  psalms  cover  a  period  from  David  to 
the  time  of  the  Maccabees. 

The  Psalter  is  divided,  in  obvious  imitation  of  the 
Pentateuch,  into  five  books,  each  of  which  closes  with  a 
doxology.  The  division  is  as  follows:  1-41;  42-72; 
73-89;  90-106;  107-150. 

The  collection  of  the  whole  Psalter  was  not  made  at 
one  time ;  our  Psalter  represents  several  earlier  collections. 
The  chief  proofs  of  this  statement  are  the  following: 
(a)  The  presence  of  (slightly  variant)  duplicates  in  the 
Psalter  (compare  14  with  53;  40:  13-17  with  70;  57:  7- 
11  and  60:  5-12  with  108).  (b)  At  the  close  of  Ps.  72 

we  read :  “The  prayers  of  David,  the  son  of  Jesse,  are 
ended.”  This  indicates  that  there  was  once  a  special  col¬ 
lection  of  psalms  ascribed  to  David.  But  since  among 
Ps.  73-150  we  find  many  ascribed  to  David,  and  among 
Ps.  1-72  there  are  many  ascribed  to  other  sources,  it  is 
clear  that  the  original  collection  of  Davidic  psalms  was 
not  held  to  be  complete  nor  kept  intact,  (c)  We  may 
infer  by  analogy  that  the  psalms  of  the  sons  of  Korah 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  155 


(42^9;  84-89),  the  psalms  of  Asaph  (50,  73-83),  and 
other  groups  once  formed  separate  collections,  (d)  Cer¬ 
tain  groups  of  psalms  are  decidedly  “Jahvistic,”  others 
“Elohistic”  (not  from  the  same  authors  as  the  J  and  E 
of  the  Pentateuch,  but  showing  the  same  usages  in  the 
appellations  of  Deity).  In  Psalms  3-41  the  name  Jahweh 
occurs  272  times,  and  Elohim  only  15  times,  while  in 
Psalms  42-84  Jahweh  occurs  only  48  times  and  Elohim 
208  times. 

When  we  begin  to  inquire  as  to  the  origin  of  the  several 
psalms,  we  seem  at  first  to  be  particularly  well  informed, 
for  about  100  of  the  150  psalms  bear  a  superscription 
naming  the  author.  To  David  are  ascribed  73,  to  Solo¬ 
mon  2,  to  Asaph  12,  to  the  sons  of  Korah  11,  to  Moses, 
Ethan,  Heman,  Jeduthun  1  each.  But  there  are  clear 
evidences  that  these  superscriptions  are  additions  by  late 
editors  and  therefore  afford  little  or  no  sure  information. 
This  is  especially  obvious  in  the  case  of  the  13  notations 
of  the  circumstances  in  which  David  composed  given 
psalms.  These  notations  are  taken  almost  word  for  word 
from  the  books  of  Samuel;  besides,  David  himself  cannot 
be  supposed  to  have  given  such  explanations  as  these  are. 

The  views  as  to  the  age  of  the  psalms  composing  the 
Psalter  are  very  divergent.  The  older  view  that  nearly 
all  are  from  the  hand  of  David  is  universally  given  up. 
But  even  that  David  was  the  author  of  all  the  73  ascribed 
to  him  is  impossible;  for  some  of  these  clearly  have  an 
historical  background  of  a  much  later  period.  Some 
notable  scholars  not  only  deny  that  David  wrote  so  many 
psalms,  but  even  that  he  wrote  any.  Not  a  few  critics 
place  all  the  psalms  in  the  post-exilic  time.  The  chief 
questions  that  concern  us  in  this  connection  are  the  fol¬ 
lowing:  ( 1 )  Are  there  pre-exilic  psalms ?  (2)  Are  there 


156  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


even  Davidic  psalms?  (3)  Are  some  psalms  as  late  as 
the  Maccabean  age? 

(1)  The  opinion  that  our  Psalter  contains  a  consider¬ 
able  number  of  pre-exilic  psalms  has  been  seriously  ques¬ 
tioned  by  many  scholars,  but  in  recent  years  it  has  largely 
reestablished  itself.  The  arguments  in  favor  of  the  pres¬ 
ence  of  pre-exilic  psalms  are  chiefly  three:  (1)  We  have 
a  number  of  “psalms  concerning  the  king,”  viz.,  2;  18; 
20;  21;  28;  33;  45;  61;  72;  110.  It  is  unlikely  that  the 
psalms  would  appear  in  this  form  if  kings  belonged  only 
to  a  remote  past;  and  they  could  not  well  refer  to  the 
Maccabees,  for  these  would  hardly  be  called  kings.  (2)  A 
number  of  the  psalms  express  the  same  unfavorable  view 
of  sacrifices  and  ritual  that  we  find  in  the  great  prophecies 
of  the  eighth  century.  ( Compare  Ps.  40:6;  50:9; 
51:17  with  Isa.  1 :  10  £f.  and  Micah  6:8.)  Finally,  Jere¬ 
miah,  a  pre-exilic  prophet,  uses  forms  of  prayer  which 
closely  resemble  the  style  and  manner  of  many  of  the 
psalms.  These  forms  seem  to  be  used  by  him  just  as  if 
they  were  altogether  familiar  in  his  time.  Now  if  the 
“psalms  concerning  the  king”  are  pre-exilic,  it  is  more 
than  probable  that  there  are  others  also. 

(2)  That  of  the  pre-exilic  psalms  some  are  Davidic 
seems  probable.  We  have  no  reason  to  distrust  the 
tradition  that  David,  the  “sweet  singer  of  Israel,”  not 
only  sang  secular  songs,  but  also  composed  psalms.  The 
picture  which  we  have  of  him  in  the  Book  of  Samuel  is 
that  of  a  man  of  high  spirit  and  imagination,  and  of  a 
very  lively  religious  feeling.  There  seems,  therefore,  to 
be  no  sufficient  reason  to  deny  that  he  wrote  psalms.  The 
question  is,  whether  any  of  our  present  Psalter  are  to  be 
referred  to  him.  There  are  several  that  eminently  fit  all 
our  ideas  of  the  personality  of  David  and  are  quite  in 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  157 


keeping  with  what  we  know  of  his  times.  But  it  is  prob¬ 
able  that  any  psalms  that  David  may  have  composed  would 
be  more  or  less  rewritten  or  reshaped  in  later  times. 

In  our  search  for  possible  Davidic  psalms  we  must  pass 
by  those  which  address  the  king  or  speak  of  him  in  the 
third  person.  Thus,  for  example,  we  should  have  to 
exclude  such  psalms  as  20;  21;  72;  110.  We  must  also 
pass  by  all  the  psalms  that  refer  to  the  temple  and  its 
forms  of  worship  as  already  existing.  Finally,  we  must 
exclude  such  psalms  as  are  composed  in  the  late  idioms 
of  the  Hebrew  language. 

On  the  other  hand,  such  a  psalm  as  23,  or  8,  or  19 
(verses  1-6),  or  60  (verses  7-11)  seem  fairly  to  suit  all 
that  we  know  of  David  and  his  times.  To  this  list  we 
may  add  psalms  3,  4,  7,  16,  and  perhaps  18.  Such 
psalms  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  Davidic,  though  hardly 
without  the  recognition  of  the  probability  of  their  having 
been  more  or  less  altered  in  the  course  of  their  being 
handed  down  from  generation  to  generation. 

(3)  If  we  may  claim  that  considerable  portions  of  the 
psalms  3-41  and  51-72  are,  at  least  in  their  original  form, 
pre-exilic,  it  is  even  clearer  that  42-50  and  73-150  are 
exilic  and  post-exilic.  The  psalms  of  these  latter  groups 
contain  so  many  and  so  clear  references  to  historical 
events  and  conditions,  such  as  the  Captivity  and  the  suf¬ 
ferings  in  Babylon,  the  return  from  the  Exile,  the  rebuild¬ 
ing  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple,  and  the  new  order  of 
life  and  worship,  that  it  is  possible  to  fix  the  general 
period  of  their  origin  with  certainty.  Some  of  these  post- 
exilic  psalms  seem  to  be  as  late  as  the  Maccabees,  i.  e., 
after  167  B.  C. 

It  is  probable  that  there  were  as  many  as  six  stages  in 
the  compilation  of  the  Psalter.  (1)  The  earliest  Psalter 


158  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

was  a  collection  bearing  the  superscription  of  David. 
Some  hold  that  there  were  two  Davidic  collections,  the 
first  comprising  psalms  3-41  (except  33)  and  the  second, 
psalms  51-72.  (2)  There  was  doubtless  a  book  entitled 

“Of  Asaph,”  comprising  psalms  50  and  73-83.  The  title 
“Of  Asaph”  doubtless  signified  coming  from  a  guild  of 
singers  of  that  name.  (3)  The  analogous  compilation 
“Of  the  Sons  of  Korah,”  another  guild  of  singers. 
(4)  The  so-called  Elohist  Psalter  is  apparently  a  com¬ 
pilation  from  early  collections  by  an  editor  who  used  the 
name  Elohim  in  preference  to  the  name  Jahweh.  (5)  The 
enlargement  of  this  group  by  the  addition  of  psalms 
84-89,  (6)  The  compilation  of  the  books  entitled 

“Songs  of  Ascents,”  psalms  120-134. — As  for  the  dates 
of  the  various  collections,  there  can  be  no  certainty. 
They  seem  to  have  appeared  in  the  order  of  time  essen¬ 
tially  as  indicated  above.  Probably  there  was  a  collection 
of  so-called  Davidic  psalms  before  the  Exile,  but  certainly 
the  chief  collecting  and  editing  of  the  Psalter  was  post- 
exilic.  Possibly  the  Psalter  was  not  complete  until  about 
100  B.  C. 

There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  earlier  psalms, 
generally  speaking,  were  considerably  reshaped  in  the 
course  of  the  development  of  temple  worship.  It  was 
only  after  the  Exile  that  the  element  of  song  in  the  temple 
service  was  systematically  developed.  This  gave  occasion 
for  the  adaptation  of  the  older  poetry  to  the  uses  of  public 
worship.  Doubtless  those  who  guided  those  public  ser¬ 
vices  dealt  with  traditional  religious  poetry  even  more 
freely  than  our  modern  hymn-book  makers  have  done 
with  the  materials  at  their  command,  altering  and  editing 
to  suit  their  purposes.  Thus  we  see  in  the  Psalter  the 
Hymn-book  of  the  Second  Temple. 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  159 


In  the  main  the  Psalter  breathes  the  prophetic  rather 
than  the  priestly  spirit.  Yet  here  and  there  we  find  a 
psalm  that  reveals  the  priestly  interest  in  a  rather  pro¬ 
nounced  degree.  The  longest  of  the  psalms,  the  119th, 
is  an  eightfold  alphabetic  acrostic,  i.e.,  eight  verses  begin¬ 
ning  with  the  first  letter  of  the  alphabet,  then  eight  verses 
beginning  with  the  second,  and  so  on;  it  is  a  psalm  in 
praise  of  the  law.  Here  and  there  we  find  evidences  of 
alterations  or  additions  to  a  psalm  in  order  to  adapt  it  to 
the  teachings  of  the  prevailing  religious  party.  The 
second  part  of  Psalm  19  is  apparently  a  later  addition 
designed  to  constitute  a  religious  parallel  to  the  splendid 
nature-poetry  of  the  first  part  of  the  psalm.  Psalm  51  is 
an  utterance  of  the  old  prophetic  abhorrence  of  religious 
formalism  and  of  all  outward  show  of  piety  where  the 
heart  is  not  right  with  God;  but  the  last  two  verses  are 
an  evident  attempt  to  balance  this  rather  extreme  view  by 
adding  something  on  the  values  of  pure  sacrifices. 

The  Psalms  are  undoubtedly  that  portion  of  the  Old 
Testament  which  has  the  greatest  present  significance  for 
the  Christian  church.  They  represent  on  the  whole  the 
highest  levels  of  the  religious  experiences  of  the  ancient 
Hebrews.  Their  beauty,  depth,  and  earnestness  are  truly 
wonderful. 

b.  The  Book  of  Proverbs  bears  at  its  beginning  the 
title:  “The  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  son  of  David,  King  of 
Israel.”  But  there  are  also  here  and  there  in  the  book 
other  titles,  which  obviously  pertain  to  certain  lesser  col¬ 
lections  incorporated  in  the  book.  This  latter  fact  plainly 
indicates  that  the  book  does  not  purport  to  be  the  work 
of  Solomon  alone.  No  doubt  Solomon  was  the  author  of 
many  wise  and  memorable  sayings.  These  and  many 
others  from  many  sources  have  been  gathered  together 


160  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


during  a  very  long  period.  The  book  represents  the  prac¬ 
tical  wisdom  of  the  sages  and  of  the  whole  people  during 
their  entire  history  until  perhaps  two,  or  less  than  two, 
centuries  before  Christ. 

c.  The  Book  of  Job  is  generally  regarded  as  the  finest 
piece  of  literature  in  the  Old  Testament.  Indeed,  not  a 
few  literary  critics  place  it  at  the  very  head  of  the  world's 
great  literature.  Its  age  is  unknown.  The  rabbinical 
ascription  of  the  work  to  Moses  is  without  a  shadow  of 
plausibility.  Most  scholars  believe  the  book  should  be 
dated  after  the  Exile;  but  there  is  nothing  in  its  form  or 
contents  that  could  not  have  been  pre-exilic.  In  the 
opinion  of  some  the  author  was  not  a  Palestinian.  The 
background  of  the  book  is  the  desert  country  (Arabia). 
But  the  writer  has  the  Jewish  conception  of  God,  and  is 
himself  probably  a  Jew. 

The  Book  of  Job  is  commonly  called  a  drama,  yet  it  is 
in  many  respects  unlike  all  other  dramas.  Except  in  the 
prologue  there  is  no  action.  The  dialogue,  however,  is 
tremendously  energetic.  There  is  interaction  of  ideas; 
hence  the  book  may  be  called  a  spiritual  drama.  It  has 
also  been  called  an  epic  of  the  inner  life.  The  subject  or 
problem  of  the  book  is  the  suffering  of  the  righteous,  or 
the  possibility  of  faith  in  God  in  view  of  such  suffering. 
The  unnamed  author  has  taken  as  a  starting  point  the 
traditional  story  of  a  man  called  Job,  who,  in  spite  of 
his  perfect  righteousness,  suffered  most  strangely,  but 
was  at  last  restored  to  happiness  and  prosperity.  But  this 
ancient  story  is  made  merely  the  setting  or  background, 
the  prologue  and  epilogue  for  the  poem.  These  parts  are 
prose,  while  the  book  proper  is  poetry.  After  the  “pro¬ 
logue  in  heaven’^  the  real  book  begins.  Job  first,  after 
long  silence,  utters  a  most  bitter  complaint.  Then  one  of 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  161 


the  three  “friends”  of  Job  makes  a  reply.  Then  Job 
again  speaks  and  the  second  friend  replies;  then  Job  and 
the  third  friend.  The  argument  continues  for  three 
rounds  (except  that  the  third  friend  is  silent  in  the  last 
round).  Then  come  the  speeches  by  a  character  not 
hitherto  introduced,  namely,  Elihu.  The  argument  of  the 
three  friends  had  been  that  somehow  all  suffering  must 
be  the  just  punishment  for  sin;  Job,  who  had  seemed  so 
righteous,  must  somehow  be  a  great  sinner.  Job  had 
stoutly  denied  that  he  had  done  anything  to  deserve  such 
treatment.  He  scarcely  stops  short  of  blasphemy  in  his 
bitter  complaints  against  the  divine  government  of  the 
world.  But  now  Elihu  argues  from  the  standpoint  that 
the  meaning  of  suffering  is  discipline.  He  seems  to  repre¬ 
sent  a  relatively  new  doctrine  in  his  day.  The  old  theology 
is  inadequate;  he  will  offer  the  new  wisdom.  For  several 
reasons  the  great  majority  of  scholars  hold  the  Elihu 
speeches  to  be  an  interpolation.  Yet  they  certainly  might 
have  been  introduced  by  the  original  author  of  the  book 
as  an  exhibition  of  the  futility  of  the  new  rational  theol¬ 
ogy,  which  was  really  no  less  inadequate  than  the  old. 
After  the  Elihu  speeches  comes  the  grand  climax  of  the 
book  in  the  Jehovah  speeches;  God  manifests  Himself  to 
Job  and  addresses  him  in  a  most  grand  and  impressive 
manner.  Then  Job  confesses  his  error  in  reproaching 
God.  This  brief  confession  of  Job’s  is  followed  by  the 
epilogue.  Strictly  speaking,  the  author  does  not  propose 
a  direct  solution  of  the  problem.  Yet  the  fact  that  Jehovah 
does  at  all  manifest  himself  as  interested  in  Job  and  in 
all  his  creation  brings  a  certain  peace  to  Job.  The  real 
answer  to  the  problem  of  the  suffering  of  the  righteous 
is  possible  only  in  the  light  of  the  cross  of  Christ.  In  the 
light  of  the  cross  Paul  is  able  to  say :  “I  reckon  that  the 


162  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


sufferings  of  this  present  time  are  not  worthy  to  be  com¬ 
pared  with  the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed  in  us/’ 

d.  The  five  Megilloth,  or  Rolls,  were  the  books :  Song 
of  Songs,  Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Esther. 
The  special  designation  “Rolls”  is,  of  course,  not  due  to 
the  fact  that  these  books  alone  appeared  in  this  form — 
all  the  books  of  the  Hebrews  were  rolls— but  because  the 
public  use  of  these  books  made  this  form  rather  con¬ 
spicuous.  At  each  of  five  great  religious  days  (four 
feasts  and  one  fast)  a  roll  was  read  entire  in  the  syna¬ 
gogues  ;  namely,  the  Song  of  Songs  at  the  Passover,  Ruth 
at  Pentecost,  Lamentations  on  the  day  of  the  destruction 
of  the  Temple,  Ecclesiastes  at  the  Feast  of  the  Booths,  and 
Esther  at  the  Feast  of  Purim. 

The  Song  of  Songs  is  the  first  of  this  group.  Its 
ascription  to  Solomon  is  doubtless  an  error;  it  is  based, 
no  doubt,  on  the  frequent  mention  of  Solomon  in  the 
poems.  The  book  is  a  collection  of  songs  of  love  and 
marriage.  Solomon  and  the  Shulamite  are  the  hero  and 
heroine.  These  poems  were  long  regarded  as  having  an 
allegorical  reference  to  the  mutual  relations  of  Christ  and 
his  bride,  the  church.  The  inclusion  of  the  book  in  the 
canon  is  doubtless  due  to  the  fact  that  the  name  of  Solo¬ 
mon  got  associated  with  it  as  author.  As  literature  the 
poems  are  very  fine.  They  may  be  dated  in  the  fifth  or 
fourth  century  B.  C. 

The  book  of  Ruth,  which  in  our  Bibles  appears  as  “a 
jewel  set  between  the  ermine  of  the  judges  and  the  purple 
of  the  kings,”  belongs  rightfully  here  among  the  “Writ¬ 
ings.”  It  is  a  beautiful  story  of  a  Moabitess  who,  because 
of  her  loyalty  to  her  mother-in-law  Naomi  and  her  piety 
toward  the  God  of  Israel,  became  an  ancestress  of  King 
David.  The  story  forms  a  most  effective  vehicle  for  the 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  163 


expression  of  the  broader  human  sympathy,  which  we 
have  seen  also  in  Jonah,  in  contrast  with  the  narrow  ex¬ 
clusiveness  of  the  majority  of  Jews.  The  scene  is  laid 
about  the  close  of  the  era  of  the  Judges.  The  germ  of 
the  story  is  in  all  probability  historical;  a  pure  invention 
on  just  this  point  of  the  attitude  toward  foreigners  would 
have  met  with  vigorous  and  effectual  protest  on  the  part 
of  the  Jews.  As  to  the  age  of  the  book  we  cannot  be  sure. 
Probably  it  must  be  dated  before  the  fall  of  Prince  Zerub- 
babel  who  was  governor  of  Judah  just  after  the  return  of 
the  exiles ;  for  the  force  of  the  reference  to  David  and  his 
house  would  be  largely  lost  after  the  fall  of  the  last  royal 
prince  of  David’s  line. 

The  Book  of  Lamentations  comprises  five  poems 
(dirges  and  prayers)  referring  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
in  586  B.  C.  The  tradition  that  ascribes  the  books  to 
Jeremiah  reaches  as  far  back  as  the  Septuagint  version, 
but  it  is  shown  to  be  untenable  because  of  a  variety  of  his¬ 
torical  allusions  and  sentiments  which  cannot  be  ascribed 
to  Jeremiah.  Chapters  2  and  4  are  apparently  the  oldest 
portion  of  the  book;  they  are  the  work  of  a  man  who  had 
passed  through  the  terrible  siege  of  Jerusalem.  Chapter  1 
reveals  the  historical  background  of  the  Captivity.  Chap¬ 
ter  5  is  the  work  of  a  man  living  in  Jerusalem  before  the 
rebuilding  of  the  temple  (520  B.  C.).  Chapter  3  is  later 
than  the  rest;  as  an  individual  song  of  complaint  it  may 
be  dated  even  after  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple. 

The  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  (Heb.  Koheleth,  “Admon- 
isher”  or  “Preacher”)  belongs  to  the  category  of  “wis¬ 
dom  literature.”  The  book  seems  to  purport  to  have  been 
written  by  Solomon.  This,  however,  can  hardly  have 
been  intended  as  anything  more  than  a  fanciful  or  poetical 
investiture  of  the  writing  for  an  aesthetic  effect;  it  does 


164  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

not  seriously  claim  to  spring  from  Solomon.  Linguistic 
peculiarities  and  evidences  of  acquaintance  with  Greek 
philosophic  ideas  make  it  clear  that  the  book  cannot  have 
been  written  before  300  B.  C.  (nearly  700  years  after 
Solomon’s  time).  The  more  probable  date  is  about 
200  B.  C. 

The  fundamental  idea  of  the  book  is  the  vanity  of  all 
things  under  the  sun.  The  writer  was  a  man  weighed 
down  by  many  doubts,  a  man  of  a  strongly  pessimistic 
tendency.  That  he  was  not,  however,  a  radical  pessimist 
is  clear,  since  he  believed  in  a  living  God  (see  3:17  f. ; 
5:19  f.  ;9:1;  11:5),  In  this  world  he  saw  no  retributive 
justice  and  he  was  not  sure  of  a  hereafter  (3:20f.). 
Yet  he  believed  that  even  in  this  world  there  were  some 
abiding  values,  especially  wisdom  (7:11  ff.).  In  the  pas¬ 
sage  11  : 9--12 :  7  he  sets  forth  a  body  of  positive  moral 
principles.  At  bottom  Koheleth  was  a  believer.  The 
book,  in  spite  of  its  doubts,  deserves  our  sincere  respect. 
The  author  had  evidently  suffered  much,  and  although  he 
had  not  attained  to  a  triumphant  faith,  he  was  pressing 
on  toward  the  light. 

The  Book  of  Esther  is  the  story  of  the  way  in  which 
the  conspiracy  of  Haman  at  the  court  of  Ahasuerus 
(Xerxes)  against  the  life  of  all  the  Jews  in  the  kingdom 
was  brought  to  naught  by  the  Jew  Mordecai  and  his 
adopted  daughter,  the  beautiful  Queen  Esther.  The  story 
is  told  with  much  dramatic  power.  Its  special  object  is 
to  portray  the  origin  of  the  Feast  of  Purim.  The  book, 
as  its  language  and  other  marks  show,  could  not  have  been 
written  before  300  B.  C.  The  events  narrated  probably 
lay  some  two  centuries  in  the  past.  Presumably  some 
tradition  formed  the  basis  of  the  story;  but  that  germ 
was  doubtless  fantastically  developed.  The  Feast  of 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  165 


Piirim  seems  to  have  sprung  from  several  sources.  Ap¬ 
parently  it  was  a  Jewish  combination  and  transformation 
of  certain  Babylonian  festivals.  It  was  observed  by  the 
jews  of  the  eastern  (Babylonian  and  Persian)  countries 
long  before  it  was  introduced  into  Judea.  It  was  origi* 
nally  a  purely  secular  feast. 

The  spirit  of  the  book  is  that  of  an  intense  and  fanatical 
nationalism.  This  spirit  of  exclusiveness  and  hatred  of 
the  Gentiles  finds  some  excuse  in  the  multitude  of  the 
persecutions  which  the  Jews  suffered.  Nevertheless,  the 
contrast  between  the  exclusiveness  of  Esther  and  the 
beautifully  generous  attitude  toward  foreigners  displayed 
in  Ruth  and  Jonah  is  very  marked. 

e.  '‘The  Remaining  Books''  are  Daniel,  Ezra,  Nehe^ 
miah,  and  1  and  2  Chronicles. 

The  Book  of  Daniel  is  placed  in  our  Bibles  as  one  of 
the  Major  Prophets.  The  fact  that  the  Jews  placed  it 
among  the  “Writings”  is  doubtless  due  to  its  very  late 
origin.  When  it  was  written  (about  165  B.  C.),  the 
Jews  already  had  a  group  of  scriptures  called  “The 
Prophets,”  and  this  group  was  regarded  as  complete.  No 
new  book  could  be  admitted  to  it.  There  was,  however, 
room  for  the  reception  of  books  that  seemed  to  spring 
from  acknowledged  leaders,  especially  from  the  worthies 
of  the  past.  Now  some  centuries  had  elapsed  since  the 
time  of  Daniel,  but  there  was,  as  yet,  no  book  of  Daniel. 
When,  therefore,  a  book  bearing  the  name  of  Daniel 
appeared,  it  won  recognition  as  a  weighty  production, 
but  it  was  naturally — yes,  inevitably — placed  among  the 
“Writings”  and  not  among  the  “Prophets.” 

The  book  consists  of  two  parts:  (a)  the  narrative  of 
the  experiences  of  Daniel  and  his  companions  under 
Nebuchadnezzar,  Belshazzar,  and  Darius  the  Mede  in 


166  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Babylon  (ch.  1-6)  ;  (b)  four  visions  of  Daniel,  disclosing 
the  course  of  the  world  empires  following  the  fall  of 
Babylon  until  the  establishment  of  the  eternal  Messianic 
kingdom. 

That  the  book  did  not  spring  from  the  Babylonian 
Exile,  but  from  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  is  proved  by 
the  following  facts:  (1)  Its  place  among  the  “Writings,’^ 
the  latest  group  in  the  Canon.  (2)  It  is  unmentioned  in 
“The  Wisdom  of  Jesus,  the  Son  of  Sirach,”  chapter  49, 
where  the  prophets  and  other  worthies  are  commemorated. 
(3)  Its  language:  a  part  is  Aramaic,  the  rest  in  a  very 
late  Hebrew;  words  borrowed  from  the  Persian  and  the 
Greek  are  found  in  both  parts.  (4)  The  writer  is  not 
well  informed  concerning  the  history  of  the  Babylonian 
Exile.  (5)  The  events  of  Jewish  history  in  chapters  7, 
9,  and  11  are  portrayed  with  a  specific  exactness  that 
belongs  to  history,  not  prediction. 

It  is  possible  to  fix  the  date  almost  exactly.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  8:14  the  writer  had  already  witnessed  the  dedica¬ 
tion  of  the  temple  by  Judas  Maccabseus,  which  we  know 
took  place  in  165  B.  C.  But  the  death  of  the  abhorred 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  has  not  yet  occurred  (see  11:20- 
25).  Now,  that  event  occurred  not  long  after  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  164  B.  C.  Accordingly,  the  date  of  the  book 
must  have  been.about  the  close  of  165  B.  C. 

The  main  purpose  of  the  book  is  evidently  to  inspire 
the  Jews  with  a  great  and  victorious  faith  in  their  national 
destiny.  The  grand  idea  took  possession  of  the  writer 
that  the  rise  and  fall  of  empires  following  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  was  but  leading  up  to  a  glorious  restoration 
of  Israel  and  the  establishment  of  the  imperishable  Mes¬ 
sianic  Kingdom.  The  magnificent  success  of  the  Macca- 
bean  revolt  filled  the  heart  of  the  writer  with  this  great 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  167 


hope.  He  chooses — not  as  an  act  of  deceit — to  clothe 
his  messsage  in  the  form  of  an  apocalypse  dating  from 
the  period  of  the  Captivity. 

The  Book  of  Daniel  is  the  most  impressive  example 
(in  chapters  7-12)  of  Jewish  apocalyptic  literature.  The 
fundamental  and  essential  characteristic  of  an  apocalypse 
is  that  it  discloses  the  very  form  and  manner  of  future 
events — a  “history  written  before  the  time.”  With  what 
we  may  call  prophecy  proper  it  is  not  so.  In  this  no 
essential  stress  is  laid  upon  the  form,  manner  and  order 
of  coming  events,  but  upon  the  working  out  of  the  moral 
government  of  God. 

It  is  characteristic  of  all  apocalyptic  conceptions  that 
they  grow  into  fuller  detail  and  clearer  form  through  a 
long  period — in  some  instances  a  very  long  time.  The 
apocalyptic  materials  in  Daniel  were  doubtless  in  a  large 
measure  traditional.  This  fact  helps  us  to  understand 
that  the  writer  of  Daniel  intended  no  fraud  when  he 
ascribed  these  old  apocalypses  to  a  Jewish  sage  of  the  time 
of  the  Exile.  And  without  doubt  this  apocalypse — in 
contrast  to  some  of  the  apocryphal  apocalypses — shows  a 
grand  and  worthy  conception  of  the  divine  control  of  the 
world’s  history. 

The  four  books,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  1  and  2  Chronicles, 
undoubtedly  were  originally  one  comprehensive  historical 
work.  Various  indications  make  it  perfectly  clear  that 
the  books  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  in  their  present  form  were 
not  written  by  the  men  whose  names  they  bear — they  do 
not  purport  to  be  written  by  them — but  by  someone  living 
not  earlier  than  300  B.  C.  One  of  these  indications  is 
that  the  book  of  Nehemiah  contains  a  list  of  the  high 
priests  which  comes  down  to  about  300  B.  C.  As  to  the 
question  of  identity  of  authorship,  it  is  to  be  noted  that 


168  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

the  most  characteristic  phrases  occur  in  all  four  of  the 
books. 

The  theme  of  the  whole  work  was  the  holy  people  of 
God  upon  earth  from  Adam  until  the  restoration  of  the 
Jewish  church  under  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  The  work 
shows  throughout  the  Levitical-priestly  tendencies  and 
interests.  In  keeping  with  this  standpoint  the  writer 
passes  rapidly  over  the  earlier  times  until  King  David 
comes  to  the  throne.  Henceforth  Jerusalem,  the  temple 
and  its  worship,  and  all  matters  of  ceremonial  and  legal 
religion,  engage  the  chief  attention  of  the  writer.  For 
his  materials  down  to  the  Exile  he  depends  chiefly  upon  the 
books  of  Samuel  and  the  Kings.  But  he  also  mentions 
some  other  sources,  otherwise  unknown  to  us.  At  all 
events  the  historical  sources  are  not  always  faithfully 
handled,  but  are  frequently  much  transformed  under  the 
influence  of  priestly  ideas  and  traditions. 

For  the  post-exilic  period  the  author  has  access  to  valu¬ 
able  sources  and  uses  them  fairly.  We  may,  indeed, 
assume  that  the  transformations  of  the  pre-exilic  history 
were  never  conscious  perversions.  The  events  in  the  lives 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  seem  to  be  told  in  a  straight¬ 
forward  manner.  An  occasional  error  has  been  discov¬ 
ered,  but  the  picture  is  doubtless  correct  in  the  main. 

We  may  now  briefly  summarize  the  development  of 
the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament.  First  we  have  the 
earliest  folk-songs,  folk-tales  and  beginnings  of  the  laws, 
next  the  oldest  direct  sources  of  the  Pentateuch.  These 
stages  lie  before  the  production  of  any  of  the  books  of 
our  Old  Testament  as  we  possess  them.  In  the  third 
period  falls  the  production  of  the  earliest  of  our  Old 
Testament  books.  It  is  the  age  of  the  earliest  literary 
prophets.  Next  comes  the  period  of  literary  production 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  169 


of  the  Deuteronomic  Code.  To  it  belong  also  a  few  of 
the  Minor  Prophets.  The  fifth  period  of  authorship  is 
that  of  the  Exile,  including  the  “First  Captivity”  from 
597.  To  this  period  belong  Ezekiel,  the  author  of 
Lamentations,  and  the  great  unnamed  prophet  commonly 
known  as  Deutero-Isaiah.  To  this  time  we  may  also 
assign  much  of  the  work  of  the  compilation  of  the  Book 
of  the  Kings,  and  perhaps  the  writing  of  much  of  the 
Priestly  Code.  The  sixth  period,  the  post-exilic,  might 
be  subdivided  into  minor  periods,  yet  it  may  also  be 
viewed  as  one.  To  this  period  belong  not  only  the 
production  of  a  number  of  new  books,  but  also  the  edit¬ 
ing  of  the  Pentateuch  (or  rather  Hexateuch),  the  collect¬ 
ing  and  editing  of  the  Psalms  and  Proverbs,  and  the  final 
shaping  of  some  of  the  older  historical  books. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  actual  composition  of  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  as  we  now  have  them,  stretched 
over  more  than  six  centuries,  namely,  from  Amos  (about 
750  B.  C.)  to  the  latest  Psalms  (written  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  second  century  B.  C.).  But  the  writers  and  com¬ 
pilers  of  some  of  the  Old  Testament  books  used  written 
materials  of  a  much  earlier  date  than  Amos — in  some 
cases  several  centuries  earlier;  and  of  course  oral  tradi¬ 
tions  reach  back  to  a  far  remoter  past. 

CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE  OF  THE  LITERATURE  OF  THE 

OLD  TESTAMENT 

Pre-Mosaic  Era 

Gen.  14  (a  Canaanite  document);  Gen.  4:23  f.;  possibly 
Gen.  9:25-27. 

Mosaic  Era 
(about  1300) 

(a)  Various  Sayings,  such  as  that  concerning  the  crossing 
of  the  Red  Sea  (Ex.  15:21) ;  that  concerning  Ama- 


170  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

lek  (Ex.  17:16)  ;  that  to  the  Ark  (Num.  10:35  f.)  ; 
the  Song  of  the  Well  (Num.  21 :17  f.)  ;  also  Num. 
6 :24— 26 ;  21 : 10-16 ;  the  germ  of  33 : 1  ff. ;  21 :27-29. 

(b)  The  Decalogue  (Ex.  20:1—17);  later  rewritten  and 

expanded. 

(c)  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  20:23-23:19). 

Era  of  the  Judges 
(about  1250-1050) 

(a)  Various  Songs  and  Sayings,  e.g.,  the  Song  of  Deborah 

(Judg.  5)  ;  Song  of  Moses  at  the  Red  Sea  (Ex. 
15:1—18);  the  Blessings  of  Jacob  (Gen.  49,  except 
verses  8—12)  ;  and  a  few  others. 

(b)  Legal  Utterances,  e.g.,  the  *‘J  Decalogue’^  (Ex.  34:10- 

27 ) ,  though  this  may  be  earlier ;  the  twelvefold  com¬ 
mandment  at  Schechem  (Deut.  27:15—26). 

(c)  The  shaping  of  Various  Traditions  (chiefly  oral). 

Davidic  Era 
(about  1000) 

(a)  Davidic  Songs  and  Psalms  (at  least  in  germ),  such  as 

the  Song  of  the  Bow  (2  Sam.  1:19-27);  Lament 
over  Abner  (3:33f.);  Psalm  18  and  perhaps  the 
germ  of  about  10  other  psalms. 

(b)  Sayings,  such  as  David’s  Last  Words  (2  Sam.  23:1-7)  ; 

the  Saying  concerning  Judah  in  “Jacob’s  Blessing” 
(Gen.  49:8-12) ;  the  Balaam  Oracles  in  Numbers  23 
and  24  (these  may  be  earlier). 

(c)  Probably  the  Book  of  Jashar  and  the  Book  of  the  Wars 

of  Jehovah. 

(d)  Possibly  the  beginning  of  the  J  Writing. 

Solomonic  Era 
(about  950) 

(a)  Annals  taken  up  by  the  writer  of  1  Kings  (1  Ki.  4-7; 
9;  lOL 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  171 


(b)  Possibly  the  completion  of  the  J  Writing  extending 

from  Gen.  1  to  1  Ki.  2. 

(c)  Possibly  the  beginning  of  the  E  Writing. 

(d)  Solomon’s  Saying  at  the  Dedication  of  the  Temple 

(1  Ki.  8:12  E.)- 

(e)  The  germ  of  Proverbs  10-22. 

About  850-800 

(a)  Song  of  Moses  (Deut.  32). 

(b)  Possibly  J  and  E  writings  (rather  than  earlier  dates?). 

(c)  The  later  source  of  Samuel  and  Kings  (as  far  as  2  Ki. 

13)  (?) 

Era  of  Jeroboam  II 
(about  750) 

Amos  (about  760-750) ;  Hosea  (750-735) ;  perhaps  Isaiah 
15  and  16  (pre-Isaianic?). 

Era  of  the  Downfall  of  the  Northern  Kingdom 

(740-722) 

Portions  of  Isaiah;  Micah  1. 

Era  of  Hezekiah 
(722-699) 

(a)  Remainder  of  genuine  writings  of  Isaiah. 

(b)  Micah  2-5. 

(c)  Combination  of  J  and  E. 

(d)  Biography  of  Solomon  (1  Ki.  3-11). 

(e)  Basis  of  Proverbs  25—29  (?). 

(f)  Various  Psalms  (later  revised?). 

(g)  Basis  of  Deuteronomy  (  ?). 

Era  of  Manasseh 
(698-643) 

Portions  of  Micah;  basis  of  the  Law  of  Holiness,  Lev.  17- 
26,  and  other  portions  of  the  Priestly  Writing;  some 
additions  to  Isaiah. 


172  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

Era  of  Josiah 
(640-608) 

Zephaniah;  Habakkuk;  finding  of  D  and  expansion  of  same; 
also  combination  of  D  with  E;  Nahum;  possibly  a 
po-tion  of  Joel. 

Era  of  the  Last  Jewish  Kings 
(608-586) 

Large  portions  of  Jeremiah;  a  redaction  of  the  Book  of 
the  Kings;  various  Psalms;  some  of  the  Book  of 
Proverbs. 

Era  of  the  Exile 
(586-536) 

Completion  of  the  Book  of  Jeremiah  (by  Baruch)  in  Egypt; 
Ezekiel  in  Babylon ;  Lamentations  2,  4  and  1 ; 
Deutero-Isaiah ;  some  Psalms ;  combination  of  JE 
and  D  (or  DE). 

Era  of  the  Return 
(537-520) 

Isaiah  56-66  (Trito-Isaiah)  ( ?) ;  Lamentations  5;  Psalm 
137;  additions  to  Jeremiah  (ch.  50  and  51). 

Era  of  the  Rebuilding  of  the  Temple 

(520-516) 

Haggai;  Zechariah  1-8;  Ruth. 

About  500 

The  Priestly  Writing  in  Babylon;  the  Book  of  Job. 

About  470-450 

Lamentations  3;  Malachi;  Obadiah. 

Era  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
(458— ca.  420) 

Final  redaction  of  the  Pentateuch  (P  combined  with  JED)  ; 
Ezra’s  memoirs;  Nehemiah’s  memoirs;  the  Aramaic 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  173 

source  concerning  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem  (Ezra 
4-6)  ;  Jonah  ( ?). 

About  400 

Collection  and  general  redaction  of  the  ‘‘Former”  and  “Lat¬ 
ter”  Prophets.  Joel.  (Some  additions  to  the 
prophetical  books  are  of  later  date.) 

In  the  4th  Century 

Some  additions  to  Isaiah;  the  most  of  Psalms  42-49  and 
73-150;  Proverbs  1-9;  Song  of  Songs. 

About  330 

Habakkuk  (?) 

About  300 

The  Chronicler’s  writing  (Chronicles,  Ezra-Nehemdah) ; 
Esther  (?) 

About  200  (?) 

Zechariah  9-14;  Ecclesiastes. 

Maccabean  Era 
(after  168) 

Daniel  165;  collection  of  the  “Writings”  and  their  addition 
to  the  Law  and  Prophets. 

About  75  B.  C. 

Final  canonization  of  the  Old  Testament  in  its  present  com¬ 
pass  in  Jerusalem. 

(This  syllabus  is  largely  based  on  that  of  Sellin.) 


Chapter  XI 


THE  COLLECTION  AND  CANONIZATION  OF 
THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

We  have  seen  that  all  highly  organized  religions  tend 
not  only  to  produce  their  special  literatures,  but  also 
eventually  to  establish  their  canons  of  “sacred  literature.” 
The  canonization  of  a  body  of  literature  is  in  every  in¬ 
stance  the  result  of  a  relatively  long  process.  Out  of 
the  religious  movement  and  life  springs  a  literature.  Of 
the  books  thus  produced  some  commend  themselves  to  the 
practical  sense  of  a  religious  community  as  being  both 
useful  and  necessary,  and  these  are  at  length  sanctioned 
by  the  community  as  possessing  a  divine  authority.  The 
religious  community  never  fancies  that  it  lends  authority 
to  the  books;  it  only  acknowledges  the  authority  which 
it  believes  to  be  inherent  in  them.  It  is  only  the  content 
of  divine  truth  that  can  ground  any  real  and  ultimate 
authority.  At  the  same  time  it  is  only  the  sanction 
of  a  religious  community  that  makes  a  writing  actually 
canonical. 

The  idea  of  a  “scripture  canon,”  as  developed  in  Juda¬ 
ism  and  as  generally  accepted  in  the  history  of  Christi¬ 
anity,  has  a  positive  and  a  negative  aspect.  Positively, 
the  community  affirms  that  certain  books  possess  the 
attributes  of  divine  revelation.  Negatively,  it  denies  that 
any  other  books  possess  these  attributes. 

The  Jewish  canon  was  not  fully  and  finally  established 

m 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  175 


until  about  75  B.  C.  Until  this  time  the  separation  of 
the  fully  acknowledged  from  the  doubtful  books  had  not 
been  definitely  carried  through.  Indeed,  there  was  some 
dispute  regarding  one  or  two  of  the  Writings  (Kethubim) 
for  more  than  a  century  after  this.  Nevertheless,  there 
was  a  canon  several  centuries  earlier  than  this,  namely, 
in  the  time  of  Ezra;  only  the  canon  of  Ezra  (fixed  about 
444  B.  C.),  and  even  the  enlarged  canon  of  about  200 
B.  C.,  had  not  yet  arrived  at  the  point  of  strictly  excluding 
all  other  books,  present  or  future,  from  the  category  of 
divinely  inspired  writings. 

There  were  three  stages  or  epochs  in  the  formation  of 
the  Old  Testament  canon.  Indeed,  there  was  an  earlier 
or  preliminary  stage  before  the  three.  In  the  preliminary 
stage  special  acknowledgment  was  accorded  this  or  that 
writing,  and  with  continued  use  the  sense  of  the  sanctity 
of  the  writing  grew ;  but  there  was,  as  yet,  no  attempt  to 
fix  and  declare  the  list  of  writings  which  should  be 
regarded  as  authoritative. 

(1)  The  “first  canon”  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term 
was  that  established  under  the  leadership  of  Ezra  about 
444  B.  C.  This  was  the  canon  of  the  Law  (Torah),  and 
consisted  of  the  Pentateuch.  Now,  we  know  that  Ezra 
and  the  people  of  the  time  also  held  other  books  to  be 
inspired;  but  these  other  books,  the  histories  and  the 
prophecies,  were  not  set  up  as  an  unconditional  practical 
standard.  They  were  to  be  read  for  edification,  while 
the  books  of  the  Law  possessed  fundamental  authority. 

(2)  The  “second  canon”  gave  sanction  also  to  a  spe¬ 
cific  list  of  the  Prophets,  the  “Former”  and  the  “Latter” 
Prophets.  The  Prophets,  however,  were  not  placed  quite 
on  a  level  with  the  Law.  This  second  canon  is  dated 


176  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


about  200  B.  C.  The  Jewish  Bible  by  this  time  consists 
of  two  parts:  The  Law  and  The  Prophets. 

(3)  The  ‘hhird  canon”  added  the  Kethubim  or  Writ¬ 
ings  (called  in  the  Septuagint  version  Hagiographa). 
These  again  were  not  placed  quite  on  a  level  with  the 
earlier  collections.  The  full  settlement  of  this  final  canon 
must  be  dated  in  the  last  century  of  the  pre-Christian 
era,  probably  about  75  B.  C.  The  Jewish  Bible  now 
comprises  three  parts:  The  Law  (Torah),  The  Proph¬ 
ets  (Nebiim),  and  The  Writings  (Kethubim).  About 
the  time  of  the  establishment  of  this  completed  canon,  the 
rabbis  began  to  teach  that  the  line  of  the  prophets  had 
ceased,  that  no  books  but  these  were  inspired,  and  that 
no  inspired  books  were  to  be  expected  in  the  future. 

It  is  certain  that  Ezra  in  magnifying  the  Law  had  no 
thought  of  denying  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets.  The 
reason  for  specially  exalting  the  Law  was  purely  prag¬ 
matic.  The  life  of  the  people  was  to  be  organized  and 
the  natural  basis  of  organization  is  law.  This  observa¬ 
tion  should  aid  us  in  clearly  discriminating  between  the 
collecting  of  the  writings  and  their  canonization.  The 
Jews  collected  various  writings  to  be  read  for  moral  and 
religious  instruction,  and  they  highly  honored  them  long 
before  they  found  occasion  to  canonize  them. 

The  date  of  the  collecting  of  the  Prophets  (Former 
and  Latter)  must  have  been  before  the  time  of  the  writing 
of  Ecclesiasticus  (Wisdom  of  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach), 
for  this  book,  whose  date  is  about  182  B.  C.,  mentions 
the  three  major  prophets  and  the  twelve  minor  prophets 
just  as  they  occur  in  our  Hebrew  Bibles.  Their  canoni¬ 
zation  seems  to  have  been  effected  at  about  the  same  time 
(apparently  not  far  from  200  B.  C.). 

It  is  of  special  interest  to  note  that  the  idea  of  a  fixed 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  177 


and  closed  canon  should  emanate  only  from  the  Pales¬ 
tinian  Jews;  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  (in  particular 
those  of  Alexandria)  did  not  recognize  a  closed  canon. 
The  son  of  Sirach,  for  instance,  evidently  regarded  his 
book  as  belonging  to  precisely  the  same  category  as  the 
books  of  prophecy  and  wisdom  in  the  “canonical”  list. 
The  Alexandrian  Bible  (the  Septuagint)  included  a  num¬ 
ber  of  books  which  the  Jews  regarded  as  apocryphal. 
And  since  many  of  the  Christian  church  fathers  knew 
the  Old  Testament  only  in  the  Greek  version,  it  was  the 
Alexandrian  rather  than  the  Palestinian  Old  Testament 
that  was  the  more  generally  known  and  accepted  in  the 
Old  Catholic  Church.  The  Old  Testament  Apocrypha 
are  included  in  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  the  Roman  Church 
acknowledges  their  inspiration. 

The  Old  Testament  (according  to  the  Palestinian 
canon)  was  the  Bible  of  Jesus  and  his  disciples.  Its 
divine  inspiration  was  never  a  matter  of  uncertainty  with 
Jesus.  Yet  it  is  clear  that  he  did  not  share  the  doctrine 
of  the  scribes  that  the  Scriptures  were  absolutely  perfect. 
The  Scriptures  required  completion,  fulfilment.  To  our 
Lord,  who  came  with  the  consciousness  of  a  Messianic 
mission,  the  idea  of  a  “closed”  canon,  in  the  sense  that 
God  had  ceased  to  speak  to  men,  must  have  been 
abhorrent. 


Chapter  XII 

BETWEEN  THE  TESTAMENTS 

Until  a  few  decades  ago  it  was  the  prevailing  view  that 
the  last  of  the  Old  Testament  books  was  written  about 
400  B.  C.,  and  that  between  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
time  of  Jesus  there  intervened  “four  centuries  of  silence,” 
four  centuries  in  which  there  was  no  revelation,  no  pro¬ 
phetic  voice.  We  now  know  that  there  are  important 
writings  in  the  canonical  Old  Testament  that  date  from 
as  late  as  the  second  century  B.  C.  Hence,  even  if  there 
had  been  a  period  of  silence  between  the  Old  Testament 
and  Jesus,  it  could  not  in  any  event  have  been  as  long 
as  two  centuries.  But  even  this  shorter  period  between  the 
Testaments  was  not  a  time  of  silence.  It  was  a  time  of 
great  religious  activity  and  of  real  religious  progress. 
The  proofs  of  this  statement  are  to  be  found  partly  in 
the  writings  called  Apocrypha,  but  more  especially  in  those 
known  as  Pseudepigrapha. 

The  canonization  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
unhappily  involved  the  denial  of  the  inspiration  of  any 
teachers  that  should  come  after  the  closing  of  the  canon. 
For  this  reason  any  man  who  had  a  religious  message  to 
declare  to  the  people  found  it  expedient  to  ascribe  his 
production  to  some  Old  Testament  worthy  who  lived  not 
later  than  the  time  of  Ezra;  for  the  accepted  doctrine 
was  that  since  the  completion  of  the  accepted  list  of  books 
God  had  ceased  to  speak  to  men.  The  Pseudepigrapha 
accordingly  bear  the  names  of  such  men  as  Enoch,  Moses, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Baruch,  Ezra,  etc. 

178 


BETWEEN  THE  TESTAMENTS 


179 


The  Pseudepigrapha  are  in  the  main  apocalyptic.  Some 
of  the  Apocrypha  are  more  or  less  so.  The  motives 
leading  to  the  development  of  apocalyptic  are  not  far  to 
seek.  Legalism  and  literalism  had  put  a  check  upon  the 
freedom  of  religious  expression.  To  be  a  good  Jew  was, 
first  and  always,  to  keep  the  Law.  But  those  who  did  not 
wish  in  the  least  to  violate  the  law,  and  yet  longed  for 
spiritual  life  and  movement,  sought  and  found  relief  and 
satisfaction  in  a  mystical,  visionary  religious  life. 

In  the  nature  of  the  case  the  tendency  was  for  the 
apocalyptists,  while  remaining  true  to  the  Law  and  laying 
much  stress  upon  the  ethical  side  of  life,  to  revel  in  antici¬ 
pation  of  the  coming  glory  of  Israel. 

The  last  two  centuries  before  the  Christian  era  wit¬ 
nessed  a  very  ample  development  of  the  ideas  of  the  future 
life  and  of  the  events  that  should  accompany  the  ushering 
in  of  the  Messianic  kingdom. 

We  may  summarize  the  development  of  religion 
‘‘between  the  Testaments”  under  a  few  main  heads. 

( 1 )  The  more  genuine  type  of  prophecy  has  given  way 
to  apocalyptic.  The  function  of  the  prophet  had  been  to 
preach  righteousness  and  to  point  to  God’s  workings  and 
his  moral  purpose.  But  now  the  exaltation  of  the  Law 
has  made  the  preacher  seem  almost  superfluous.  As  an 
immediate  force  in  the  spiritual  life  of  men  the  prophet 
has  largely  lost  his  occupation.  Apocalyptic,  on  the  other 
hand,  takes  its  stand  upon  the  legal  system,  enforcing  its 
precepts,  and  encouraging  the  people  by  visions  of  Israel’s 
future  glory. 

(2)  The  “kingdom  of  God”  in  apocalyptic  literature 
tended  more  and  more  to  mean  a  glorious  kingdom  which 
should  be  established  “at  the  end  of  the  age”  (or 
“world”).  It  was  to  be  something  more  than  the  last 


180  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


of  a  series  of  earthly  kingdoms,  the  enduring  one  in  con¬ 
trast  with  all  others  which  had  fallen  or  must  vet  fall. 
It  was  to  be  a  kingdom  at  once  earthly  and  heavenly — 
earthly  in  its  seat,  yet  more  than  earthly  in  its  power 
and  glory. 

(3)  The  Messiah  is  pictured  in  far  greater  detail  than 
in  the  canonical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament. 

(4)  The  doctrine  of  a  future  life,  which  in  the  Old 
Testament  remains  obscure,  is  much  developed  between 
the  Testaments.  Heaven,  hell,  angels,  the  resurrection  of 
the  body  are  all  brought  into  the  foreground. 

(5)  The  doctrines  of  personal  righteousness  are  devel¬ 
oped.  The  duty,  for  example,  of  forgiveness  of  one’s 
neighbor  is  made  clearer  than  it  had  been  of  old. 

The  most  important  part  of  the  extant  literature  of  the 
period  between  the  Testaments  is  comprised  in  the  Apoc¬ 
rypha  as  found  in  the  Septuagint  (see  the  list  in  Chapter 
II).  The  understanding  of  the  religious  life  of  Israel  in 
this  period  is  indispensable  to  a  fuller  appreciation  of  the 
origins  of  Christianity.  Within  the  last  few  decades  the 
recognition  of  this  fact  has  immensely  influenced  the  lines 
of  New  Testament  study.  The  New  Testament  may  no 
longer  be  studied  merely  in  the  light  of  the  canonical  Old 
Testament  and  contemporary  history.  The  historical 
development  of  the  religion  of  Israel  did  not  cease  with 
the  closing  of  the  canon.  The  background  of  the  life  and 
the  work  of  Jesus  was  not  merely  the  religion  of  the 
canonical  Scriptures.  At  the  same  time,  it  must  not  be 
overlooked  that  Jesus  himself  honored  the  canonical  Scrip¬ 
tures  above  the  traditions  of  the  elders.  For  a  luminous 
brief  treatment  of  the  period  between  the  Testaments,  see 
Charles’  “Religious  Development  between  the  Old  and 
the  New  Testaments.” 


Chapter  XIII 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW 

TESTAMENT 

The  Old  Testament  Scriptures  are  the  product  of  a 
long  movement  of  national  religious  history,  the  national 
religion  of  the  Hebrews.  The  New  Testament  is  the 
product  of  a  more  rapid  movement  covering  the  period 
of  the  founding  and  first  expansion  of  the  Christian 
Church.  The  production  of  the  Old  Testament  literature 
covers  a  period  (if  we  include  the  most  ancient  sources 
that  are  wrought  into  the  books  as  we  have  them)  of  at 
least  1,000  years.  No  book  of  our  New  Testament,  as 
we  now  have  it,  appears  to  have  been  written  earlier  than 
50  A.  D.,  and  perhaps  only  one  of  the  books  can  be  dated 
much  after  the  close  of  the  first  century. 

(1)  The  earliest  group  of  writings  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  are  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  This  statement,  however, 
applies  only  to  the  group  taken  as  a  whole,  for  it  is  pos¬ 
sible  that  some  of  the  other  writings  may  have  appeared 
before  the  latest  of  Paul’s  Epistles.  Now,  we  should 
naturally  expect  the  Gospels  to  be  written  before  any 
Epistles,  and  it  is  indeed  possible  that  one  or  more 
“sources”  of  our  present  Gospels  may  have  antedated  our 
Epistles;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  Gospels,  as  we  now 
have  them,  all  appeared  later  than  the  most  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles.  The  reason  for  the  earlier  appearance  of  the 
Epistles  is  not  hard  to  discover.  The  memorials  of  the 
life  of  Jesus  were  recited  in  the  congregations  by  wit- 

181 


182  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


nesses  or  by  others  well  instructed  in  the  tradition.  The 
need  for  written  accounts  of  the  life  of  Christ  did  not 
begin  to  be  felt  keenly  until  the  number  of  eye-witnesses 
began  to  be  inadequate  for  the  demands  of  the  churches 
for  personal,  oral  narration  in  the  public  assemblies.  As 
the  church  extended  into  new  regions  and  the  number  of 
believers  multiplied,  and  the  eye-witnesses  became  rela¬ 
tively  few,  there  arose  a  lively  demand  for  written  records 
of  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus;  but  the  occasions  for  apostolic 
letters  arose  earlier. 

All  writings  of  real  historical  significance  are  more  or 
less  occasional.  That  is  to  say,  they  are  writings  called 
forth  by  a  concrete  situation  or  occasion.  This  is  true  in 
an  eminent  degree  of  the  New  Testament  writings.  The 
occasional  character  of  Paul’s  Epistles  is  particularly 
evident.  Paul’s  letters  are  the  immediate  outgrowth  of 
his  missionary  and  pastoral  work.  Each  letter  deals  with 
a  concrete  situation.  One  of  them,  the  letter  to  the 
Ephesians,  appears  to  have  been  a  circular  letter  to  a  group 
of  churches  in  the  province  of  Asia.  Accordingly,  its 
character  is  more  general  than  is  the  case  with  the  other 
letters.  Generally  speaking,  no  writings  can  be  pointed 
out  that  are  more  specific  in  their  relations  to  concrete 
situations  than  the  Epistles  of  Paul. 

Paul  wrote  letters  only  in  lieu  of  direct  personal  com¬ 
munication.  He  preferred  to  meet  the  churches  face  to 
face,  but  in  his  absence  from  them  he  had  repeated  occa¬ 
sion  to  write  to  them,  encouraging,  rebuking,  instructing, 
according  to  their  particular  needs.  The  Pauline  Epistles 
are  documents  of  the  apostle’s  pastoral  care  of  his  various 
flocks.  They  afford  us  a  wonderful  insight  into  the  situa¬ 
tion  and  character  of  the  New  Testament  churches,  and 
also  into  the  mind  and  heart  of  the  apostle  himself.  In 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  183 


order  to  read  Paul’s  Epistles  understandingly  one  must 
study  to  get  a  clear,  general  view  of  his  character  and 
personal  history,  and  yet  it  is  just  these  Epistles  to  which 
we  must  chiefly  go  for  a  knowledge  of  the  man  and  his 
work.  But  we  have  also  the  wonderful  and  highly  trust¬ 
worthy  narrative  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  means 
at  our  command  for  understanding  the  man  and  his  work 
include,  therefore,  the  Pauline  Epistles,  the  Acts,  and  the 
known  background  of  the  Jewish  religion  in  which  he  was 
brought  up.  One  Epistle  will  throw  light  upon  another 
and  our  knowledge  of  Pharisaism  will  shed  light  upon 
them  all.  This,  then,  is  our  situation :  we  must  know  the 
man  and  his  work  in  order  to  understand  the  earliest  and 
primitive  Christian  religion.  The  problem  is,  therefore, 
somewhat  complex.  From  each  side  of  the  problem  light 
must  be  reflected  upon  the  other  side  of  the  problem. 

Paul’s  conversion  probably  occurred  within  two  years, 
possibly  within  one  year,  of  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus,  or 
about  29  or  30  A.  D.  He  was  not  from  the  moment  of 
his  conversion  ripe  for  the  world’s  apostleship.  He  devel¬ 
oped  into  a  world  apostle.  This  development  was  swift 
enough  to  set  him  well  in  advance  of  all  the  other  apostles. 
After  preaching  for  a  time  in  Arabia,  Syria  and  Cilicia, 
he  is  at  length  brought  by  Barnabas  from  his  home  in 
Tarsus  to  help  in  the  work  of  evangelization  in  Antioch. 
Here  Gentiles  are  hearing  and  receiving  the  gospel  along 
with  the  Jews.  The  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  fills  the 
souls  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  with  joy,  but  many  of  the 
Jews  look  upon  it  with  grave  doubt.  If  Gentiles  are  to 
be  brought  into  the  church,  they  must  (these  said)  be 
brought  in  as  Jews — they  must  submit  to  all  the  cere¬ 
monial  requirements  of  the  Mosaic  law.  From  the  first 
Paul  took  the  broadest  ground.  In  the  death  of  Christ 


184  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

a  new  covenant  was  established  which  annulled  the  whole 
system  of  legal  ordinances  and  put  in  its  place  the  principle 
of  faith y  that  is,  a  relation  of  trust,  loyalty  and  inward 
fellowship  with  God.  This  difference  between  Paul  and 
the  Judaizers,  or  “party  of  the  circumcision,”  involved  the 
most  serious  and  momentous  controversy  of  the  apostolic 
age.  What  sort  of  gospel  was  to  be  preached  to  the  Gen¬ 
tiles?  From  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  from  the  whole 
course  of  the  development  of  the  apostolic  church  we  know 
that  Paul’s  “gospel  of  liberty”  more  and  more  triumphed 
over  the  narrow  spirit  of  legalism  that  would  have  imposed 
the  Jewish  ceremonial  law  upon  the  whole  world.  The 
first  stage  of  the  controversy  between  the  “liberty  of  the 
gospel”  and  the  “bondage  of  the  law”  culminated  in  an 
appeal  of  Paul  to  the  apostles  and  elders  at  Jerusalem 
(Acts  15).  Here  Paul’s  position  was  sustained:  the 
Gentiles  should  not  be  required  to  submit  themselves  to 
the  ordinances  of  the  Jewish  law.  And  yet  the  controversy 
did  not  cease  even  then.  Several  of  Paul’s  letters  bear 
witness  to  the  sharpness  of  the  controversy  for  some  years 
afterwards. 

Paul’s  first  letters  are  those  to  the  Thessalonians.  On 
his  second  missionary  journey  he,  in  company  with  Silas, 
had  preached  the  gospel  in  Macedonia  with  no  small  suc¬ 
cess,  first  in  Philippi,  then  in  Thessalonica  and  Berea. 
After  Paul  had  passed  on  to  Athens,  he  learned  of  the 
state  of  the  church  at  Thessalonica,  and  he  wrote  them 
a  letter  of  admonition  and  encouragement— though  per¬ 
haps  not  until  he  had  reached  Corinth.  The  special  sub¬ 
ject  of  his  letter  is  the  question  of  the  Christian’s  proper 
bearing  in  relation  to  the  hope  of  the  Lord’s  speedy  return. 
Now  Paul  himself  shared  in  this  hope,  and  had  preached 
it  to  the  Thessalonians ;  but  he  never  had  suffered  himself 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  186 


to  be  diverted  thereby  from  the  task  which  the  Lord  had 
given  him.  The  Thessalonians,  on  the  other  hand,  had 
run  into  a  very  dangerous  fanaticism.  Reveling  in  the 
expectation  of  the  Lord’s  appearing,  many  of  them  were 
neglecting  the  simplest  Christian  duties.  Paul’s  method 
of  dealing  with  the  Thessalonian  error  is  a  wonderful 
example  of  his  great  practical  wisdom  and  of  the  sanity 
of  his  own  faith.  While  we  hope  for  the  Lord’s  early 
return,  we  are  therefore  (Paul  argued)  to  be  all  the  more 
zealous  to  fulfill  every  task  and  so  to  be  found  ready.  The 
time  and  manner  of  Christ’s  return  we  do  not  know.  The 
Second  Epistle  (whose  authenticity  has  been  questioned 
on  rather  slight  grounds)  continues  the  same  theme.  The 
date  of  these  Epistles  lies  somewhere  between  49  and  53 
A.  D.,  probably  toward  the  end  of  this  period. 

The  next  Epistle  in  order  was  probably  that  to  the  Gala¬ 
tians.  It  is  a  fiery  yet  profound  letter  in  opposition  to  the 
Judaizers  who  had  come  in  after  Paul  in  order  to  overturn 
or  pervert  the  work  he  had  done  in  Galatia.  His  gospel 
of  grace  and  freedom  they  were  turning  into  a  system  of 
legalism.  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  was  Luther’s 
favorite  among  Paul’s  writings.  Its  date  and  the  place 
of  its  writing  cannot  now  be  surely  determined.  Most 
scholars  place  it  early  in  the  Ephesian  period  of  Paul’s 
ministry  (about  56,  or  perhaps  55,  A.  D.). 

In  Corinth  Paul  remained  in  fruitful  labors  for  a  year 
and  a  half.  After  passing  on  to  Ephesus,  the  chief  city 
of  the  province  of  Asia,  he  had  occasion  to  write  certain 
Letters  to  the  Corinthians.  From  notices  in  the  second 
Epistle,  it  is  clear  that  Paul  wrote  at  least  three  letters  to 
that  church.  It  is  probable  that  our  “Second  Epistle” 
really  contains  the  main  body  of  the  second  and  third  of 
the  letters  mentioned.  Without  doubt  the  Corinthian 


186  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Epistles  are,  historically,  by  far  the  most  illuminating  of 
Paul’s  Epistles.  Nothing  could  possibly  surpass  the  con¬ 
creteness  of  Paul’s  treatment  of  the  situation  in  the  church 
at  Corinth.  Not  only  do  we  learn  much  about  Paul  from 
these  letters,  but  they  afford  a  wonderful  insight  into  the 
religious  and  social  life  of  the  churches  in  the  apostolic 
age.  In  the  Corinthian  church  were  divisions,  religious 
and  practical  errors  and  the  like ;  but  there  was  also  much 
godly  zeal.  These  Epistles  are  remarkable  for  the  number 
and  variety  of  topics  which  Paul  was  called  upon  to 
discuss.  They  may  be  dated  between  55  and  57  A.  D. 

After  a  rather  long  stay  at  Ephesus,  Paul  visits  the 
churches  of  Macedonia  and  comes  a  second  time  to 
Corinth.  It  is  from  here  that  he  writes  the  great  Letter 
to  the  Romans.  It  is  not  possible  for  us  to  know  as  much 
concerning  the  occasion  of  this  letter  as  we  do  in  the  case 
of  the  letters  previously  mentioned.  Paul  had  never 
visited  Rome,  but  he  was  very  desirous  of  going  thither. 
The  church  at  Rome  may  have  been  founded  by  Christians 
from  the  provinces  settling  in  the  capital.  No  doubt  Paul 
had  some  special  reason  to  believe  that  the  church  at  Rome 
had  need  of  instruction  upon  the  first  principles  of  the 
gospel — salvation  by  grace,  through  faith,  without  the 
works  of  the  law.  The  main  theme  is  much  the  same  as 
that  of  Galatians;  only,  in  this  latter  Epistle  Paul  writes 
with  more  restraint,  and  his  attitude  toward  the  law  is 
more  carefully  explained.  He  shows  himself  not  opposed 
to  the  law  in  an  unqualified  sense;  the  law  has  not  been 
annulled,  but  rather  spiritualized  and  relieved  of  its  for¬ 
malities.  Intellectually,  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is 
Paul’s  greatest  writing.  It  is  unsurpassed  also  in  its 
religious  fervor. 

Leaving  Corinth,  Paul  returns  to  Jerusalem,  taking  with 


THE  EUUKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  18? 

j'm  the  collection  from  various  churches  for  the  poof 
saints  in  Jerusalem.  Here  he  meets  with  much  bitter 
opposition  on  the  part  of  the  unbelieving  Jews  and  also  no 
little  doubt  and  suspicion  on  the  part  of  the  Christian 
Jews.  In  consequence  of  false  suspicions  and  accusa* 
tions,  he  is  arrested.  The  Jews  are  resolved  upon  his 
death,  but  the  Roman  military  captain  sends  him  undet 
guard  to  Caesarea.  There  he  is  long  imprisoned  in  hope 
of  bribes  to  be  paid  for  his  release.  At  length,  upon  his 
appealing  to  Caesar,  he  is  sent  to  Rome.  Whether  he  is 
later  released  and  is  finally  put  to  death  at  the  end  of  a 
second  imprisonment,  or  whether  this  imprisonment  closes 
with  his  martyrdom,  is  uncertain.  At  all  events,  it  seems 
pretty  clear  that  several  of  Pauhs  letters  belong  to  the  zm- 
prisonment  period.  They  are  therefore  called  the  “Im¬ 
prisonment  Epistles.”  Whether  written  all  from  Caesarea 
or  all  from  Rome,  or  indeed,  some  from  the  one  and  the 
others  from  the  other  place,  is  uncertain.  Formerly 
nearly  all  scholars  declared  in  favor  of  Rome.  More 
recent  discussions  have  shown  a  strong  inclination  to 
assign  at  least  some  of  them  to  Caesarea.  These  Im¬ 
prisonment  Epistles  are  Ephesians,  Colossians,  Philippians 
and  Philemon.  Some  scholars,  however,  are  now  arguing 
that  some,  or  all,  of  the  four  were  written  from  Ephesus. 

The  first  is  not  strictly  '‘to  the  Ephesians;”  it  was  a 
circular  letter,  and  one  important  manuscript  reads  “To 
the  church  that  is  in  Laodicea.”  The  great  theme  of  this 
Epistle  is  the  fellowGhip  of  the  faith,  the  church,  the  family 
of  God.  The  sweep  of  thought  is  grand.  The  objections 
to  the  Pauline  authorship  are  somewhat  serious,  but  they 
are  not  conclusive.  They  are  based  largely  upon  the 
peculiarities  of  style. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  closely  resembles  Ephe- 


188  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


sians  in  many  points.  It  is  probable  that  Colossians  was 
written  first,  for  the  leading  ideas  of  this  Epistle  appear 
in  the  other  in  a  more  finished  form. 

No  Epistle  of  Paul’s  is  more  sincerely  admired  than 
that  to  the  Philippians.  The  Apostle’s  relations  with  the 
Philippian  church  have  been  almost  ideal.  Here  Paul 
finds  little  to  rebuke.  He  writes  them  a  genuine  love  let¬ 
ter,  The  Epistle  contains  several  highly  characteristic  and 
weighty  passages. 

The  little  Epistle  to  Philemon  is  a  private  letter — ^the 
only  strictly  private  letter  among  Paul’s  extant  writings. 
Paul  is  sending  back  to  Philemon  a  runaway  slave, 
Onesimus,  whom  he  has  won  to  Christ.  He  sends  back 
the  slave  with  a  letter  begging  for  mercy  toward  him  and 
delicately  yet  powerfully  suggesting  his  liberation. 

A  fourth  group  of  Pauline  Epistles  is  composed  of 
1  and  2  Timothy  and  Titus.  They  are  called  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  because  they  are  written  to  counsel  pastors  or 
bishops  as  to  the  way  in  which  they  should  conduct  their 
office.  It  is  probable  that  all  three  are  comparatively  late 
elaborations  on  the  basis  of  Pauline  notes  or  letters. 
Second  Timothy  may  be  almost  all  Pauline,  though  this 
is  doubted  by  many.  The  others  show  fewer  elements 
that  look  Pauline ;  and  all  three  show  indications  of  a  later 
development  of  church  life  than  would  have  been  possible 
in  Paul’s  lifetime. 

Thus  we  have  thirteen  Epistles  that  are  commonly  reck¬ 
oned  as  Pauline.  Also  a  fourteenth,  namely,  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  has  been  traditionally  ascribed  to  Paul. 
This  ascription,  however,  rests  upon  very  slight  evidence 
and  is  now  almost  universally  rejected.  Of  the  thirteen 
other  “Pauline”  Epistles,  three  or  four  are  of  doubtful 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  189 

authenticity,  while  nine  or  ten  are  now  almost  universally 
ascribed  to  Paul. 

The  Epistles  whose  authenticity  is  all  but  universally 
acknowledged  are  the  following :  Romans,  1  and  2 
Corinthians,  Galatians,  Philippians,  Philemon,  Colossians, 
and  1  Thessalonians  (8  in  number).  To  these  we  add 
as  generally  acknowledged  to  be  authentic:  2  Thessalo¬ 
nians  and  Ephesians,  also  the  basis  of  2  Timothy  (which 
may  have  been  worked  over  by  a  later  hand) .  To  approach 
the  matter  from  the  other  side,  very  many  scholars  reject 
the  Pauline  authorship  of  1  Timothy  and  Titus  and  a 
large  part  of  2  Timothy.  A  smaller  but  still  very  con¬ 
siderable  number  of  critics  reject  the  Pauline  authorship 
of  Ephesians,  and  not  a  few  also  deny  him  the  authorship 
of  2  Thessalonians. 

The  Pauline  Epistles  are  best  classified  (in  the  manner 
already  indicated)  in  four  groups:  (1)  the  Early  Epistles 
(1  and  2  Thessalonians)  ;  (2)  the  Chief  Epistles  (Gala¬ 
tians,  1  and  2  Corinthians  and  Romans) ;  (3)  the  Impris¬ 
onment  Epistles  (Ephesians,  Colossians,  Philippians  and 
Philemon) ;  (4)  the  Pastoral  Epistles  (1  and  2  Timothy, 
Titus). 

(2)  The  knowledge  of  the  origin  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  was  early  lost  in  the  church.  Late  in  the  second 
century,  some  leaders  of  the  church  were  disposed  to 
ascribe  the  Epistle  to  Paul,  while  a  larger  number  seem 
to  have  doubted  its  Pauline  authorship.  Eventually,  how¬ 
ever,  the  growing  disposition  to  ascribe  all  of  the  most 
highly  esteemed  Christian  writings  directly  or  indirectly 
to  some  apostle  prevailed,  and  for  many  centuries  Paul 
was  credited  with  the  authorship  of  this  Epistle.  Modern 
criticism,  however,  has  made  it  very  clear  that  Paul  was 
not  its  author.  This  is  proved  principally  by  many  marked 


190  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


peculiarities  of  style.  There  is  significance  also  in  the 
entire  anonymity  of  the  writing  (Paul  always  made  his 
authorship  of  a  letter  very  conspicuous).  Finally,  the 
early  testimony  is  fairly  decisive  against  the  assumption 
of  the  Pauline  authorship.  But  who,  then,  did  write  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ?  This  we  do  not  know  and  prob¬ 
ably  never  can  know.  Four  well-known  guesses  may  be 
mentioned :  Barnabas,  Apollos,  Silas,  and  Luke.  Scholars 
are  generally  inclined  to  either  the  first  or  the  second  con¬ 
jecture.  While  the  Epistle  cannot  have  been  written  by 
Paul  himself,  it  does  represent  the  Pauline  standpoint  in 
doctrine.  In  form  “Hebrews”  is  hardly  an  Epistle;  it 
may  have  been  originally  a  sermon,  eventually  written  out 
for  circulation. 

(3)  Whether  the  author  of  the  Epistle  of  James  was 
the  James  known  as  the  brother  of  our  Lord,  is  quite  un¬ 
certain.  The  high  esteem  in  which  this  James  was  held  is 
evidenced  by  the  fact  that  he  was  long  the  acknowledged 
head  of  the  church  in  Jerusalem  (see  Acts  15  and  Gal.  1 
and  2).  If  the  letter  is  rightly  ascribed  to  him,  its  date 
may  be  very  early,  perhaps  before  any  of  Paul’s  Epistles. 
But  the  fact  that  the  letter  contends  against  a  rather  com¬ 
mon  misinterpretation  of  Paul’s  teaching  concerning  sal¬ 
vation  by  faith  alone  argues  a  somewhat  later  date.  Some 
scholars  place  it  as  late  as  in  the  early  years  of  the  second 
century.  The  Epistle  is  a  preeminently  practical  writing. 
It  has  all  the  characteristics  of  the  best  type  of  Jewish 
Christianity.  The  law  is  honored,  but  it  is  spiritualized. 

(4)  The  Epistles  of  Peter  and  Jude.  The  First  Epistle 
of  Peter  is  probably  from  the  hand  of  the  apostle — at  least 
essentially  so.  Doubts  on  this  point  are  due  chiefly  to  its 
Pauline  affinities ;  for  at  the  first,  at  least,  Peter  and  Paul 
were  not  in  perfect  agreement.  But  it  need  not  be  assumed, 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  191 


as  many  scholars  do  assume,  that  their  early  differences 
continued  to  the  end.  The  New  Testament  records  rather 
indicate  that  after  a  time  these  two  apostles  came  to  a 
substantial  agreement.  Perhaps  the  finished  form  of  the 
letter  was  not  possible  to  the  fisherman  of  Galilee  without 
the  help  of  some  more  practised  literary  hand.  But  we 
know  that  Peter  had  no  lack  of  competent  helpers.  The 
Second  Epistle,  on  the  other  hand,  is  probably  erroneously 
ascribed  to  the  apostle.  Several  features  of  the  letter 
point  to  a  date  probably  past  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  Among  these  are  the  references  to  heresies  of 
that  period  and  the  significant  reference  to  the  letters  of 
Paul  as  in  the  same  class  with  “the  other  scriptures”  (2 
Peter  3  :  16).  Such  a  view  of  apostolic  letters  was  hardly 
possible  in  the  lifetime  of  Peter.  Another  feature  of  in¬ 
terest  is  the  resemblance  of  this  Epistle  to  the  Epistle  of 
Jude.  It  is  evident  that  one  has  borrowed  from  the  other. 
The  prevailing  opinion  is  that  2  Peter  is  dependent  on 
Jude.  The  origin  of  the  latter  is  uncertain.  The  tradi¬ 
tion  that  the  author  was  our  Lord’s  brother  is  probably 
unfounded. 

We  have  yet  to  consider  the  first  three  Gospels,  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  and  the  writings  ascribed  to  John  (the 
Gospel,  the  Epistles,  and  the  Revelation).  Because  of 
its  close  relation  to  the  Pauline  Epistles,  there  is  something 
in  favor  of  considering  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  before 
we  take  up  the  Gospels,  but  since  the  Acts  is  the  continua¬ 
tion  of  the  third  Gospel,  we  shall  consider  it  after  the 
Gospel  of  Luke  and  before  taking  up  the  Johannine  writ¬ 
ings.  Because  these  last  are  of  relatively  late  date,  we 
shall  consider  them  after  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  the 
Acts. 

(5)  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  The  first  three  Gospels 


192  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


have  been  called  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  They  have  been  so 
called,  not  because  each  of  them  severally  gives  an  outline 
of  the  life  of  Jesus,  but  because  the  three  so  strongly 
resemble  one  another  in  contents,  language  and  standpoint, 
that  they  may  be  viewed  together  (a  synopsis  is  a  viewing 
together)  ;  and  they  may  be  viewed  together  because  they 
themselves  show  a  “common  view^’  (synopsis,  conspectus) 
of  the  materials  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  For  convenience’ 
sake  the  Gospels  are  often  arranged  in  parallel  columns. 
Thus  the  idea  of  the  conspectus  or  synopsis  is  visualized. 

The  resemblances  between  these  three  Gospels  are  alto¬ 
gether  remarkable,  and  they  challenge  our  curiosity.  They 
are  not  of  a  sort  that  can  be  regarded  as  mere  coincidences. 
But  not  only  are  there  many  marked  resemblances,  there 
are  also  some  equally  marked  differences.  These  resem¬ 
blances  and  differences  taken  together  present  us  with  a 
problem,  the  so-called  Synoptic  problem.  The  problem  is 
to  explain  the  origin  of  these  Gospels  and  to  account  for 
their  resemblances  and  differences. 

The  intimacy  of  the  interrelations  of  the  first  three 
Gospels  will  quickly  appear  upon  examination.  If  these 
Gospels  had  represented  three  independent  witnesses  or 
three  independent  traditions,  we  should  expect,  in  the  first 
place,  the  greatest  variety  in  the  selection  of  subject- 
matter.  But  we  find,  on  the  contrary,  a  remarkably  exten¬ 
sive  agreement  in  this  regard.  The  Gospel  of  Mark  is 
represented  almost  entirely  in  parallels  in  one  or  both  the 
other  Synoptics.  As  for  Luke,  only  250  verses  are  pecu¬ 
liar  to  this  Gospel  (apart  from  the  narrative  concerning 
the  birth  and  childhood  of  Jesus,  ch.  1  and  2).  Matthew 
has  only  about  140  verses  not  represented  in  the  parallels 
in  Mark  and  Luke.  In  the  second  place  we  find  remark¬ 
able  agreements  in  the  arrangement  of  the  matter.  Again 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  193 

and  again  we  meet  with  groups  of  passages  in  which  the 
arrangement  is  the  same  in  two  or  even  three  of  the  Gos¬ 
pels.  The  agreement  often  extends  to  the  very  words. 
Whole  sentences  occur  in  three  or  two  Gospels  in  essen¬ 
tially  identical  forms.  But  over  against  these  instances 
of  the  closest  resemblances  there  are  some  surprising 
differences. 

When  we  seek  for  an  explanation  of  these  remarkable 
phenomena,  we  have  before  us  a  goodly  number  of  abstract 
possibilities.  It  might  be  suggested,  for  example,  that 
each  evangelist  wrote  quite  independently  on  the  basis  of 
his  own  personal  knowledge  or  of  mutually  independent 
lines  of  tradition.  This  hypothesis,  however,  is  alto¬ 
gether  untenable  for  the  simple  reason  that  extensive 
verbal  agreements  in  narrating  events  are  unknown  in 
human  experience  except  where  there  is  either  collusion 
or  dependence  upon  some  common  source  or  sources. 

The  Synoptic  problem  has  probably  been  the  subject  of 
a  more  intensive  and  patient  study  than  any  other  literary 
problem  whatsoever.  No  one,  however,  claims  that  a  com¬ 
plete  solution  has  been  found.  Yet  there  is  a  pretty  exten¬ 
sive  agreement  among  scholars  as  to  certain  cardinal 
matters.  It  is  clear  that  Mark  is  the  earliest  of  our  present 
Gospels.  But  it  is  also  certain  that  there  were  some 
attempts  at  a  written  account  of  the  life  and  sayings  of 
Jesus  before  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  And  before  those 
attempts  at  written  narratives  there  was  a  period  of  purely 
oral  tradition. 

For  a  time  oral  tradition  satisfied  the  needs  of  the  com¬ 
paratively  small  community  of  believers.  But  as  the 
church  expanded,  many  of  the  congregations  were  unable 
to  hear  the  story  of  the  life  of  Jesus  from  an  eye-witness 
or  even  from  someone  who  had  carefully  learned  it  from 


194  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


an  eye-witness.  Moreover,  these  eye-witnesses  or  skillful 
narrators  began  to  be  taken  by  death.  Thus  the  demand 
for  the  written  narratives  arose.  At  first  the  writings 
were  comparatively  brief  and  fragmentary.  These  earliest 
attempts  at  narratives  of  the  life  of  Jesus  became  the  basis 
of  our  Gospels.  The  earliest  records  were  sifted  in  the 
process  of  their  use  in  the  church  and  the  best  was  incor¬ 
porated  in  the  later  and  fuller  Gospels. 

Three  primary  written  sources  are  assumed  as  under¬ 
lying  our  Synoptic  Gospels :  ( 1 )  A  document  designated 
Q  (Quelle),  which  may  have  been  substantially 
identical  with  Matthew’s  “Logia”  (Sayings  of  Jesus)  ; 

(2)  the  Gospel  of  Mark  substantially  as  we  now  have  it; 

(3)  other  brief  or  fragmentary  Gospels,  used  by  Luke 
and  perhaps  also  by  Matthew.  Of  course,  it  is  possible 
that  behind  these  earliest  traceable  sources  there  were  still 
others  which  were  so  wrought  into  these  sources  that  we 
cannot  distinguish  the  various  threads.  Both  Matthew 
and  Luke,  especially  the  former,  freely  used  the  matter 
found  in  Mark.  It  is  probable  that  even  Mark  used  some 
written  sources  for  his  gospel,  but  this  cannot  be  affirmed 
with  certainty.  That  Matthew  and  Luke  drew  not  only 
upon  Mark,  but  also  upon  other  written  sources,  is  per¬ 
fectly  clear.  It  is  very  significant  that  much  of  the  mate¬ 
rial  in  these  two  Gospels  that  is  wanting  in  Mark  is  com¬ 
mon  to  the  two,  and  therefore  must  have  been  derived 
from  a  common  source.  This  common  source — which 
may  have  been  used  more  or  less  also  by  Mark — is  desig¬ 
nated  by  the  letter  Q  (Quelle).  As  known  and  used  by 
Luke  and  the  person  who  formed  our  “Matthew,”  it  was 
probably  a  Greek  writing.  Was  it  then  perhaps  a  Greek 
version  of  Matthew’s  “Sayings  of  Jesus,”  which,  we 
know,  was  an  Aramaic  (“Hebrew”)  writing?  To  this 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  195 


question  no  certain  answer  can  be  given.  It  seems  proba¬ 
ble,  however,  that  the  Aramaic  Gospel  of  Matthew  (the 
“Sayings  of  Jesus”)  was  made  the  basis  of  one  or  more 
Greek  versions — not  mere  translations  but  adaptations  and 
elaborations.  One  such  version  was  doubtless  used  by 
the  person  who  prepared  our  “Matthew” ;  either  the  same 
or  more  likely  a  variant  version  was  used  also  by  Luke. 
It  is  entirely  possible  that  the  Greek  version  (and  elabo¬ 
ration)  of  Matthew’s  Logia  is  identical  with  Q.  Indeed, 
it  is  hardly  possible  that  Q  was  not  somehow  based  on 
Matthew’s  original  writing.  Yet  Q  may  be  regarded  as 
in  a  sense  the  product  of  the  mind  of  the  primitive  church. 
To  what  Matthew  had  recorded,  other  well-attested  say¬ 
ings  of  the  Lord  seem  to  have  been  added. 

This  source  (Q)  included  (according  to  Burkitt,  “The 
Earliest  Sources  of  the  Life  of  Jesus”)  “very  many  of 
the  most  precious  jewels  of  the  Gospel.  When  Justin 
Martyr,  in  the  second  century,  wished  to  exhibit  to  the 
heathen  emperor  the  characteristic  ethical  teaching  of 
Christ,  nine-tenths  of  his  examples  came  out  of  passages 
derived  from  Q.  It  is  from  Q  that  we  have  the  blessing 
on  the  poor,  the  hungry,  the  reviled ;  from  Q  come  ‘Love 
your  enemies,’  ‘Turn  the  other  cheek,’  ‘Be  like  your 
Father,  who  makes  his  sun  to  shine  on  the  evil  and  the 
good,’  ‘Consider  the  lilies,’  ‘Be  not  anxious — your  Father 
knoweth  that  ye  have  need,’  ‘They  shall  come  from  east 
and  west  and  sit  down  with  Abraham  in  the  kingdom  of 
God.’  It  is  Q  that  tells  us  that  the  adversaries  of  Jesus 
found  him  not  ascetic  enough,  and  mocked  at  him  as  a 
friend  of  tax-gatherers  and  sinners.  It  is  Q  that  tells  us 
that  Jesus  said  ‘I  thank  thee.  Father,  that  thou  hast  hid 
these  things  from  the  wise  and  revealed  them  to  babes — 
even  so,  Father,  for  so  it  was  pleasing  in  thy  sight.’  If 


196  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


the  work  of  Mark  be  more  important  to  the  historian,  it 
is  Q  that  supplies  the  starting-points  for  the  Christian 
moralist.  Most  important  of  all,  it  gives  light  and  shade 
to  the  somewhat  austere  lines  of  the  portrait  of  Jesus 
sketched  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark.” 

Mark's  Gospel  is  the  earliest  attempt  to  furnish  a  sketch 
of  the  life  of  Jesus,  for  Q  dealt  specially  with  his  dis¬ 
courses.  It  is  probable  that  Mark  uses  Q  in  a  few  places. 
The  date  of  Mark’s  Gospel  is  probably  some  two  years 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  70  A.  D.  The 
writer  was  Mark,  the  companion  of  Peter  and  Paul. 
According  to  tradition,  he  wrote  as  he  had  learned  from 
Peter.  Plis  Gospel  is  swift  of  movement,  simple  and  vivid 
in  expression,  and  emphasizes  the  deeds  of  Jesus  more 
than  his  discourses. 

The  ''Gospel  according  to  Matthew"  doubtless  received 
its  name  because  it  was  believed  to  have  been  based  more 
directly  than  the  rest  upon  the  Apostle  Matthew’s  work, 
which  dates  as  far  back  as  45-50  A.  D.  In  its  present 
form  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  is  a  composite 
work  derived  from  the  “Sayings”  (Logia)  in  a  Greek 
version  (Q),  from  Mark,  and  other  written  or  oral 
sources.  Because  of  the  nature  of  its  references  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  it  must  be  dated  after  that 
event— perhaps  about  75  A.  D.,  or  even  later.  It  is 
written  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Christian  Jew.  The 
Old  Testament  Scriptures  are  very  frequently  referred  to, 
and  Jesus  is  represented  with  emphasis  as  the  Christ  who 
fulfills  the  Law  and  the  Prophets. 

Luke  professedly  used  many  sources  (see  the  pref^e 
to  the  Gospel) ;  he  used  Mark  and  Q,  also  other  spUrces 
imknown  to  us.  But  he  does  not  seem  to  have  Used  our 
Matthew.  Whether  this  is  because  Matthew  was  not  yet 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  197 


written  or  whether,  though  in  existence,  it  had  not  come 
to  his  knowledge,  is  uncertain.  The  author  of  this  Gospel 
and  of  the  Acts  was  almost  certainly  Luke,  the  companion 
and  helper  of  Paul.  If  written  (as  is  generally  assumed) 
before  the  Acts,  and  then  if  the  latter  was  written  before 
the  death  of  Paul,  about  67  A.  D.  (as  a  few  assume),  the 
date  of  Luke  would  be  very  early  indeed.  But  it  is  more 
probable  that  both  must  be  dated  in  the  seventies  or  even 
in  the  eighties. 

The  Gospel  according  to  Luke  has  been  called  by  Renan 
“the  most  beautiful  book  ever  written.”  Its  beauty,  how¬ 
ever,  does  not  lie  so  much  in  its  style,  though  in  this 
respect  it  surpasses  Matthew  and  Mark,  nor  in  its  excel¬ 
lent  choice  and  arrangement  of  matter,  as  in  a  peculiarly 
gracious  sympathy  that  runs  through  the  book.  It  con¬ 
tains  several  passages  of  the  greatest  interest  which  are 
peculiar  to  itself,  e.g.,  the  Angels  and  the  Shepherds,  the 
Boy  Jesus  in  the  Temple,  the  parables  of  the  Lost  Sheep, 
the  Lost  Coin,  the  Lost  Son,  the  Good  Samaritan,  and 
the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican. 

(6)  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  opening  words  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  represent  this  book  as  a  continua¬ 
tion  of  “the  former  treatise,”  which  must  have  been  the 
third  Gospel.  Both  writings  are  dedicated  to  a  certain 
Theophilus,  and  both  exhibit  essentially  the  same  features 
of  vocabulary  and  style.  That  Luke  is  the  author  of  both 
is  rendered  almost  certain  by  the  full  agreement  of  ample 
external  testimony  with  the  internal  evidence  of  literary 
form  and  method.  In  the  Acts,  however,  there  are  certain 
sections  whose  style  varies  considerably  from  that  which 
prevails  in  the  rest  of  the  work.  This  is  doubtless  to  be 
accounted  for  by  the  author’s  free  use  of  written  sources 
for  some  matters  not  under  his  personal  observation.  In 


198  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


the  beginning  of  his  Gospel,  Luke  has  told  us  that  he  had 
examined  various  earlier  accounts  of  the  life  of  Jesus, 
and  we  may  reasonably  suppose  that  he  would  use  the 
same  method  in  writing  his  second  work.  And,  in  fact, 
as  we  examine  the  Acts  we  find  pretty  clear  evidences  of 
the  author’s  use  of  documents.  Certain  portions  of 
the  book  may  be  designated  as  “the  we-sections”  (see 
16 :  10-17 ;  20  :  5  ;  21 :  18 ;  27 :  1 ;  28 :  16).  These  passages 
are  evidently  the  work  of  an  eye-witness — and,  as  we 
know,  Luke  was  for  a  considerable  time  a  companion  of 
Paul.  The  “we-sections,”  since  they  are  the  purely  origi¬ 
nal  work  of  the  writer  of  the  Acts,  may  be  taken  as  the 
basis  of  our  study  of  the  composition  of  the  book.  When, 
then,  we  examine  the  rest  of  the  book  in  the  light  of  these 
manifestly  original  sections,  we  find  so  large  a  measure 
of  similarity  in  vocabulary  and  grammatical  construction 
as  to  be  able  to  conclude  that  the  book  as  a  whole  bears  the 
impress  of  a  single  hand.  At  the  same  time  there  are 
some  passages  in  the  earlier  chapters  that  appear  to  have 
been  drawn  almost  bodily  from  other  sources.  Even  in 
our  English  version  we  can  clearly  recognize  the  marked 
differences  of  style  between  such  passages  as  the  account 
of  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  the  speech  of  Stephen,  and  the 
addresses  of  Peter  and  John  on  the  one  hand  and  the  we- 
sections  on  the  other. 

The  date  of  the  book  cannot  be  very  much  later  than 
that  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke;  about  the  year  80  may  be 
assumed  as  approximately  correct. 

The  purpose  of  the  Acts  is  at  bottom  the  same  as  that  of 
the  Gospel.  Just  as  “the  former  treatise”  was  written  to 
show  clearly  what  is  the  foundation  of  the  faith,  namely, 
the  things  “that  Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  to  teach  until 
'the  day  in  which  he  was  received  up,”  so  this  is  written 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  19?) 

to  show  the  continuance  of  that  same  working  of  the 
living  Christ  through  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  book  shows 
how  the  gospel  spread  and  the  church  developed  in  the 
first  age  of  Christianity,  and  it  exhibits  the  power  of  the 
gospel  as  over  against  the  weakness  of  the  idolatry  and 
philosophy  of  the  Graeco-Roman  world. 

(7)  The  Johannine  Writings. 

a.  The  Gospel  of  John  was  written  at  a  considerably 
later  date  than  the  Synoptics.  Its  character  is  in  many 
ways  peculiar.  It  may  be  briefly  described  as  the  Gospel 
of  the  developing  church.  It  is  mystical  and  theological. 
While  it  is  based  upon  the  personal  recollections  of  the 
writer  and  gives  some  valuable  historical  data  more  clearly 
and  consistently  than  the  Synoptics,  it  is,  on  the  whole,  not 
an  attempt  to  give  an  objective  narrative,  but  a  spiritual 
interpretation  of  the  life  of  Christ.  The  discourses  are 
developed  in  a  style  that  belongs  to  the  writer  rather  than 
to  Jesus.  The  original  recollections  have  been  recast  and 
transfused  by  the  spiritual  experiences  of  the  writer. 

But  who  is  the  author  ?  On  this  point  scholars  find  no 
agreement.  The  weight  of  numbers  among  scholars  of 
high  repute  is  perhaps  against  the  Johannine  authorship. 
Yet  many  of  the  greatest  scholars  still  stoutly  maintain 
that  the  author  was  none  other  than  the  Apostle  John. 
A  rather  favorite  theory  is  that  the  Gospel  is  an  interpre¬ 
tation  of  the  life  of  Christ  from  some  one  of  the  group 
of  men  associated  with  the  Apostle  John  in  Ephesus. 
The  Apostle  is  thus  supposed  to  be  the  general  source  of 
the  thought  of  the  Gospel,  which  was  then  worked  out 
by  a  younger  man  after  John’s  death.  At  all  events  the 
Gospel  is  a  profound  and  spiritual  writing,  which  truly 
reflects  the  inward  life  of  faith  and  the  growth  of  the 
church’s  conception  of  Christ. 


200  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


b.  The  First  Epistle  of  John  is  surely,  the  Second  and 
Third  Epistles  and  the  Revelation  probably,  the  work  of 
the  same  writer.  Whoever  is  the  author  of  one  is 
probably  the  author  of  all.  And  the  evidence  in  favor  of 
the  Johannine  authorship  seems  at  least  as  strong  as  that 
against  it.  The  First  Epistle  is  a  sort  of  companion  to  the 
Gospel,  and  is  certainly  a  work  of  marvelous  depth.  The 
Second  Epistle  is  addressed  to  an  individual  church  under 
the  symbolic  title :  '‘the  elect  lady  and  her  children.”  The 
Third  Epistle  is  a  private  letter  to  one  Gaius,  apparently 
a  member  of  the  same  church  as  that  addressed  in  the 
Second  Epistle. 

c.  The  Apocalypse  presents  a  peculiar  problem.  As  a 
whole,  it  probably  dates  from  the  time  of  Domitian,  and 
the  persecutions  under  his  reign  (about  95  A.  D.).  But 
some  of  the  visions  seem  clearly  to  refer  to  the  persecu¬ 
tions  in  the  time  of  Nero  before  70  A.  D.  If  the  book  is 
not  directly  from  the  hand  of  John — and  the  Johannine 
authorship  can  neither  be  proved  nor  disproved — it  is 
doubtless  from  a  Johannine  circle  at  Ephesus.  The  apoca¬ 
lypses,  which  form  the  largest  part  of  the  book,  are  appar¬ 
ently  for  the  most  part  Christian  transformations  of 
Jewish  apocalyptic  ideas. 

CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

WRITINGS 

While  Biblical  scholars,  in  spite  of  their  thorough 
researches,  have  not  been  able  to  determine  the  precise 
date  of  even  a  single  writing  of  the  New  Testament,  they 
can,  with  full  certainty,  give  approximate  dates  for  many 
of  the  books.  In  the  case  of  most  of  Paul’s  Epistles  the 
margin  of  uncertainty  is  rather  narrow.  In  the  case  of 
some  of  the  other  writings  it  is  pretty  wide.  Generally 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  201 


speaking,  the  order  of  the  writings  is  a  matter  involved  in 
less  doubt  than  the  individual  dates. 

1.  Paul's  First  Letter  to  the  Thessalonians,  written 
from  Corinth  very  shortly  after  the  Apostle’s  arrival 
there  and  about  a  half-year  after  the  founding  of  the 
Thessalonian  church. 

2.  Paul's  Second  Letter  to  the  Thessalonians,  written 
from  Corinth  very  soon  after  the  First. 

3.  Paul's  Letter  to  the  Galatians.  Time  and  place  of 
writing  uncertain.  If  addressed  to  the  churches  of  North 
Galatia,  it  may  have  been  written  from  Ephesus,  shortly 
after  Paul’s  arrival  there.  If  addressed  to  those  of  South 
Galatia,  it  was  probably  written  from  Antioch  at  the  close 
of  Paul’s  second  missionary  journey. 

4.  Paul's  First  Letter  to  the  Corinthians  was  clearly 
written  from  Ephesus,  apparently  (see  16:8)  not  long 
before  the  Passover  when  Paul  left  Ephesus,  which  may 
have  been  as  early  as  55  A.  D. 

5.  Paul's  Second  Letter  to  the  Corinthians  (really  two 
letters  merged  in  one)  was  probably  written  from  Mace¬ 
donia  late  in  the  autumn  of  the  same  year  in  which  Paul 
left  Ephesus. 

6.  Paul's  Letter  to  the  Romans  was  written  from 
Corinth,  perhaps  in  March  of  the  following  year  (56  A. 
D.?). 

The  four  next  following  Letters  are  called,  and  they 
seem  to  be  in  fact,  “Imprisonment  Epistles.”  They  seem 
to  have  been  written  in  Caesarea  or  Rome,  yet  possibly, 
as  some  now  contend,  in  Ephesus.  The  probable  order 
is  as  given  below,  yet  in  this  matter  the  only  certainty 
-  seems  to  be  that  Ephesians  is  later  than  Colossians,  which 
it  resembles  in  thought  and  expression. 

7.  Paul's  Letter  to  the  Philip pians. 


202  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


8.  PauUs  Letter  to  the  Colossians. 

9.  Paul's  Letter  to  the  Ephesians,  so-called ;  it  seems  to 
have  been  a  circular  letter  to  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor. 

10.  Paul's  Letter  to  Philemon. 

These  ten  seem  to  be  all  the  genuine  Epistles  of  Paul, 
but  it  is  highly  probable  that  the  Pastoral  Epistles  ( 1  and 
2  Timothy  and  Titus),  especially  2  Timothy,  contain 
considerable  elements  originating  with  Paul. 

11.  The  Gospel  according  to  Mark,  written  probably 
after  the  death  of  Peter  and  Paul  (which  occurred  about 
67  A.  D.)  but  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in 
70  A.  D. 

12.  The  Gospel  according  to  Matthew,  written  within 
a  few  years  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

13.  The  Gospel  according  to  Luke,  written  a  little  later 
than  Matthew.  Both  Matthew  and  Luke  show  depen¬ 
dence  on  Mark,  and  both  use  the  early  source  Q,  though 
in  different  versions.  Luke  seems  also  to  have  used  still 
other  sources. 

14.  The  First  Epistle  of  Peter.  Written,  apparently, 
by  Silvanus  at  the  instance  and  in  the  name  of  Peter, 
perhaps  about  64  A.  D. 

15.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Written  by  Luke,  per¬ 
haps  about  80  A.  D. 

16.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Date  not  far  from 
80  A.  D. ;  author  unknown — possibly  Apollos. 

17.  The  Apocalypse  of  John.  Written  in  Asia  Minor, 
the  main  portion  about  80  A.  D.,  chapter  7  before  70, 
and  some  portions  probably  about  95  (in  reference  to 
the  persecution  under  Domitian). 

18.  The  First  Epistle  of  John.  Written  in  Asia 
Minor,  later  than  (the  main  body  of)  the  Apocalypse. 

19.  The  Second  Epistle  of  John.  Asia  Minor. 


THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  203 

20.  The  Third  Epistle  of  John.  Asia  Minor. 

21.  The  Gospel  according  to  John.  Written  at  Ephe¬ 
sus  toward  the  close  of  the  first  century. 

22.  The  Epistle  of  James.  Probably  not  by  “the 
Lord’s  brother.”  If  it  were  by  that  James,  the  date  would 
naturally  be  very  early.  But,  assuming  another  author, 
it  may  be  dated  75-85  A.  D.,  or  even  later. 

23.  The  Epistle  of  Jude.  Author  not  “the  Lord’s 
brother.”  The  date  probably  near  the  close  of  the  first 
century. 

24.  The  First  Epistle  of  Paul  to  Timothy.  Almost 
surely  not  genuinely  Pauline,  yet  probably  embodying 
some  Pauline  materials.  Written  at  latest  about  100 
A.  D. 

25.  The  Second  Epistle  of  Paul  to  Timothy.  In  its 
present  form  not  from  Paul,  yet  containing  a  much  larger 
body  of  Pauline  material  than  the  First  Epistle.  About 
100  A.  D. 

26.  The  Epistle  of  Paul  to  Titus.  Several  portions 
genuine.  About  100  A.  D. 

27.  The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter.  Not  genuine.  Date 
uncertain,  but,  at  the  earliest,  well  on  in  the  second 
century. 


Chapter  XIV 

THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

We  have  swiftly  traced  the  origin  of  the  twenty-seven 
Writings  composing  our  New  Testament.  But  we  know 
that  for  a  long  time  the  church  possessed  these  several 
writings  without  as  yet  possessing  a  “New  Testament.” 
The  writings  were  widely  known,  cherished  and  rever¬ 
ently  used  long  before  the  need  of  a  New  Testament 
canon  was  felt. 

The  beginnings  of  the  definite  process  of  fixing  a  list 
of  acknowledged  Christian  writings  may  be  set  about  the 
year  150  A.  D.  Long  before  this  time,  however,  condi¬ 
tions  favorable  to  the  formation  of  a  canon  were  gradu¬ 
ally  developing. 

That  the  Christian  Church  should  have  formed  a  canon 
at  all  might  seem  strange,  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  the 
whole  Christian  movement  had  burst  the  bands  of  the  old 
Jewish  Canon.  That  the  Church  should  use,  reverence, 
and  acknowledge  as  sacred  the  great  apostolic  writings 
was  most  natural  and  inevitable,  but  that  the  Church 
should  at  length  establish  a  closed  canon  seems  to  find 
its  explanation  chiefly  in  two  important  facts :  the  uni¬ 
versal  reverence  for  the  apostolic  word  and  the  growing 
tendency  to  fix  ecclesiastical  authority.  Viewed  in  one  of 
its  aspects,  the  closing  of  a  canon  is  a  phase  of  the  move¬ 
ment  which  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  the  ancient 
Catholic  Church. 

The  actual  formation  of  our  Canon  of  the  New  Testa 

204 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  205 

ment  falls  into  several  tolerably  distinct  stages.  But  before 
we  trace  the  actual  development  of  a  canon  of  New  Testa¬ 
ment  writings,  it  will  be  well  to  ask  first  of  all  what  stan¬ 
dards  of  authority  the  church  acknowledged  before  the 
specific  process  of  forming  a  “New  Testament”  began. 
Of  course  the  supreme  authority  of  Christian  believers 
could  be  nothing  else  than  Jesus  Christ  himself.  But, 
since  Jesus  was  no  longer  with  them  in  person,  they  felt 
the  need  of  some  trustworthy  mediate  authority  that 
should  truly  represent  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Now  what 
did  the  earliest  Christians  possess  that  might  satisfy  this 
demand  ? 

As  first  in  order  of  time,  though  not  first  in  importance 
for  their  faith,  stood  the  Old  Testament.  Since  Chris¬ 
tianity,  the  Messianic  faith,  grew  out  of  Judaism,  the 
Old  Testament  became  the  inheritance  of  the  church. 
Even  the  Gentile  converts  readily  received  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  from  the  Jewish  apostles  and  evangelists.  Belief  in 
the  full  divine  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament  was  an 
important  feature  of  early  Christianity.  The  early  Chris¬ 
tians  used  it,  after  the  manner  of  the  Jews,  as  a  book  of 
devotion  and  divine  instruction.  Yet  more  and  more  they 
used  it  in  a  special  relation  to  the  new  faith — they  regarded 
it  as  a  book  of  prophecy,  of  specific  preparation  for  the 
Christ.  The  whole  Old  Testament  was  for  them  a  Mes¬ 
sianic  book. 

The  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  naturally  gave  rise  to 
another  authority  linked  with  the  Old  Testament  and  yet 
rising  above  it,  namely,  the  words  of  Jesus.  At  first,  of 
course,  they  had  not  these  words  in  written  “Gospels”  but 
in  the  form  of  oral  tradition.  Paul,  in  several  instances, 
decides  questions  of  church  practice  and  individual  life  by 
an  appeal  to  the  words  of  the  Master  (e.g.,  1  Cor.  11 :23 


206  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


and  Acts  20:35).  For  a  considerable  time,  as  we  know, 
the  words  of  Jesus  were  not  handed  down  in  a  firmly  fixed 
text,  yet  the  oral  tradition  tended  more  and  more  to  settle 
down  to  an  established  form. 

Again,  the  earliest  church  recognized  a  certain  au¬ 
thority  in  the  inspiration  of  living  prophets.  In  certain 
men  the  church  seemed  to  see  the  unmistakable  signs  of 
the  working  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

These  new  and  specifically  Christian  authorities — the 
words  of  Jesus  and  the  inspired  utterances  of  New  Testa¬ 
ment  prophets — the  Church  believed  to  be  bound  up  with 
and  summed  up  in  the  apostolic  office.  For  from  the  very 
beginning  the  companions  of  Jesus  were  looked  upon  as 
the  most  valuable  witnesses  to  his  work  and  words.  For 
a  time,  however,  the  mere  fact  of  having  been  a  member 
of  the  company  of  Jesus’  personal  disciples  was  not 
thought  of  as  a  reason  for  ascribing  to  their  word  a  unique 
authority.  It  was  only  as  teachers  of  doubtful  compe¬ 
tency  began  to  appear — men  whose  work  was  not  in  per¬ 
fect  accord  with  that  of  the  first  preachers  of  the  Gospel — 
that  the  thought  began  to  take  shape  in  the  minds  of  the 
Christian  people  that  the  testimony  of  “the  Twelve” 
should  be  the  court  of  last  resort  in  all  matters  pertaining 
to  the  teaching  of  the  Master.  After  a  time,  and  not 
without  a  considerable  controversy,  the  right  of  Paul  to 
be  regarded  as  an  apostle  was  acknowledged. 

In  all  these  facts  we  see  the  germs  that  developed  into 
a  New  Testament  canon.  As  the  church  grows  and  con¬ 
tinually  meets  fresh  problems,  the  need  of  clearly  deter¬ 
mining  what  is  original  and  genuine  Christianity,  comes 
more  and  more  into  the  consciousness  of  the  church.  The 
renter  of  interest,  of  course,  concerned  the  central  reality 
of  the  faith — the  work  and  words  of  Jesus.  Hence  the 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  207 


development  tends  to  a  special  valuation  of  the  Gospels 
and  then  of  the  testimony  of  the  apostles  as  the  only 
competent  guarantors  of  the  truth  of  the  record  of  the 
life  of  Christ.  In  short,  the  formation  of  a  New  Testa¬ 
ment  canon  is  nothing  else  than  the  consistent  expansion 
and  application  of  the  idea  that  apostolic  teaching  and 
practice  are  the  court  of  last  resort  in  matters  of  Christian 
faith  and  life. 

The  need  of  a  canon  (rule,  standard)  was  felt  when 
diverse  and  divisive  teachings  had  become  a  disturbing 
factor  in  the  church’s  life.  The  formative  principle  of  the 
Canon  was  the  recognition  of  apostolic  authority.  What¬ 
ever  is  apostolic  is  to  be  admitted,  and  nothing  is  to  be 
admitted  that  is  not  apostolic,  either  directly  or  indirectly. 
Doubtless  the  immense  intrinsic  merit  of  certain  books 
was,  in  the  last  analysis,  the  effectual  cause  of  their  being 
admitted  to  the  Canon;  yet  invariably  their  admission  to 
the  Canon  was  coupled  with  the  assurance  that  these  books 
enjoyed  apostolic  sanction.  Mark  wrote  under  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  Peter  (and  also  of  Paul)  ;  Luke  was  a  companion 
of  Paul;  “Hebrews”  was  written  by  some  man  under 
Paul’s  influence,  or  perhaps  by  Paul  himself.  Such  were 
the  claims  in  the  period  of  the  sifting  of  early  Christian 
literature  with  a  view  to  fixing  a  list  of  acknowledged 
writings. 

The  stages  leading  up  to  the  fixing  of  the  Canon  were 
about  as  follows.  The  first  period  reaches  from  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  the  earliest  Christian  writings  to  about  150 
A.  D.  It  is  the  period,  first,  of  apostolic  activity,  includ¬ 
ing  the  writing  of  letters  to  the  churches  and  the  produc¬ 
tion  of  narratives  of  the  life  of  Christ.  The  writings 
were  cherished  in  proportion  as  the  work  of  apostles  and 
evangelists  was  valued.  It  is,  secondly,  the  period  of  the 


208  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


collecting  of  valued  Christian  writings,  chiefly  those  of 
acknowledged  apostolic  authorship.  We  know  relatively 
little  about  the  collecting  of  the  writings  in  this  period 
before  their  canonization,  but  we  know  a  little.  Paul’s 
letters  were  collected  comparatively  early.  It  is  probable 
that,  at  the  first,  few  churches  possessed  more  than  one 
Gospel :  here  one  Gospel  would  be  in  vogue  and  there 
another.  Gradually  these  different  Gospels  became  known 
to  other  churches,  and  each  was  valued  more  or  less  dis¬ 
tinctly  alongside  the  others.  But  there  was  a  rather 
widespread  thought  that  the  use  of  four  distinct  records 
of  the  life  of  Christ  was  not  desirable.  It  was  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  this  that  Tatian  in  Syria  undertook  the  prepara¬ 
tion  of  a  single  Gospel  composed  of  the  materials  of  the 
four — the  so-called  Diatesseron.  This  work  was  in  exten¬ 
sive  use  in  the  churches  of  Syria.  That  the  apostolic 
writings  were  collected  and  reverenced,  however,  is  not 
the  whole  of  the  matter.  They  were  continually  read  in 
the  public  services  of  the  churches;  hence  men  gradually 
set  a  special  value  on  them- — a  higher  value  than  they 
attached  to  any  other  writings. 

The  second  period  in  the  origin  of  the  Canon  reached 
from  about  150  to  about  200  A.  D.  The  compass  of  the 
acknowledged  literature  was  nearly  fixed  in  this  period. 
The  sense  of  the  need  of  a  canon  became  clear  in  this  time, 
and  there  was  a  general  agreement  as  to  the  principles 
that  should  determine  what  writings  should  be  acknowl¬ 
edged  as  authoritative.  In  this  period,  however,  no  final 
agreement  was  reached. 

We  know  from  various  testimonies  that  from  about 
150  A.  D.  the  Gospels  were  read  in  public  worship  along 
with  portions  of  the  Old  Testament;  but  there  was  not 
yet  any  claim  that  they  were  inspired  scriptures.  It  was 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  209 


for  their  message  that  they  were  valued,  not  for  any 
alleged  supernatural  origin.  Indeed,  Papias  frankly  tells 
us  that  he  sought  for  the  lines  of  the  oral  tradition  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  in  preference  to  that  embodied  in  the 
writings.  In  the  references  of  the  Church  Fathers  of 
this  period  to  the  writings  now  embraced  in  our  New 
Testament  we  note  some  striking  differences  in  their  vari¬ 
ous  estimations  of  their  value.  Justin  Martyr,  on  the 
one  hand,  puts  the  Epistles  of  Paul  very  much  in  the  back¬ 
ground,  while  others  show  a  special  fondness  for  the 
Pauline  writings.  The  extreme  of  partiality  for  Paul  is 
shown  in  Marcion,  who  broke  away  from  the  fellowship 
of  the  general  church  and  founded  one  of  his  own. 
Marcion  is  the  first  Christian  writer  to  make  use  of  the 
idea  of  a  canonical  list  of  books.  He  and  his  followers 
recognized  one  Gospel  (Luke)  and  ten  Epistles  of  Paul — 
no  other  of  our  New  Testament  writings ;  and  they  re¬ 
fused  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  the  Christian  church.  Now  Marcion  was  accounted  a 
heretic;  yet  he  did  not  depart  from  the  main  line  of  the 
church’s  teaching  as  widely  as  some  others.  Gnosticism 
sought  to  transmute  the  gospel  into  a  system  of  philo¬ 
sophic  speculation  (and  Marcion  was  not  untouched  with 
the  Gnostic  error).  It  was  largely  because  of  the  en¬ 
croachments  of  Gnosticism — much  of  it  came  even  before 
150  A.  D. — that  the  church  felt  impelled,  in  the  period  of 
150-200  A.  D.,  to  seek  to  establish  a  canon  of  scripture 
as  a  defense  against  heresy. 

At  about  200  A.  D.,  then,  we  find  in  the  church  a  gen¬ 
eral  recognition  of  a  body  of  New  Testament  scriptures. 
The  great  church  teachers,  such  as  Irenaeus  of  Lyons, 
Tertullian  of  Carthage,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  not 
only  themselves  recognized  these  scriptures,  but  also 


210  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


insisted  upon  their  necessity  as  a  basis  for  the  church’s 
teaching.  The  compass  of  the  New  Testament  at  200 
A.  D.,  however,  was  not  everywhere  the  same.  In  Alex¬ 
andria,  for  example,  some  writings  not  included  in  the 
final  Canon  were  acknowledged.  Of  much  interest  to  the 
student  is  a  specific  list  of  recognized  New  Testament 
writings  in  a  brief  document  out  of  this  period,  known 
as  the  Muratorian  Fragment.  It  enumerates  the  four 
Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  then  thirteen  Epistles 
of  Paul,  also  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  two  Epistles  of  John, 
and  the  Apocalypse  of  John.  The  Epistle  of  James  and 
the  Epistle  of  Peter  (i.e..  First  Peter)  do  not  appear,  nor 
the  Third  Epistle  of  John,  nor — as  is  to  be  expected — 
the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter.  But  we  are  surprised  to  find 
alongside  the  Apocalypse  of  John  the  Apocalypse  of 
Peter.  There  is  also  a  third  apocalyptic  writing  which  is 
recognized  in  some  quarters,  namely,  the  Shepherd  of 
Hermas.  It  is  still  further  surprising  to  find  in  the  midst 
of  this  enumeration  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  which  we 
now  find  among  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha.  Gen¬ 
erally  speaking,  we  may  say  that  at  about  A.  D.  200  and 
in  the  principal  churches  all  our  present  New  Testament 
writings  were  included  in  the  Canon,  with  the  exception 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Second  Epistle  of 
Peter,  the  Second  and  Third  Epistles  of  John,  and  the 
Epistle  of  James.  Here  and  there,  however,  other  writ¬ 
ings  stood  in  the  canonical  lists;  in  Cilicia,  for  example, 
the  Gospel  of  Peter  was  acknowledged  and  in  Syria  the 
Diatessaron. 

There  still  remains  a  third  principal  period  in  the  history 
of  the  Canon.  The  period  ends,  of  course,  with  the 
definitive  closing  of  the  Canon.  This  consummation, 
however,  was  reached  earlier  in  the  West  than  in  the  East. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  211 

In  the  Western  Church  the  list  was  finally  fixed  before  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century.  In  some  of  the  separate 
churches  of  the  East  the  conclusion  was  not  reached  until 
much  later. 

From  the  whole  history  of  the  Canon  we  must  learn 
the  obvious  fact  that  it  is  the  church’s  common  conscious¬ 
ness  that  gradually  established  the  Canon  of  Scripture, 
and  that  this  was  done  in  accordance  with  the  deepening 
sense  of  the  availability  of  given  writings  for  the  church’s 
task  of  instruction  and  edification.  And,  without  doubt, 
the  church  wisely  followed  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  in  this 
process.  Yet  we  have  no  reason  to  assume  that  every¬ 
thing  included  in  the  Canon  is  intrinsically  better  than 
anything  that  was  omitted. 


PART  III:  HOW  WE  GOT  OUR  BIBLE 


The  part  of  our  study  now  before  us  presup¬ 
poses  the  finished  Scriptures  and  asks,  in  respect 
—first  of  the  Old  Testament  and  then  of  the 
New — how  those  writings  were  brought  down 
to  us.  The  answer  to  this  question  involves  an 
inquiry  into  the  history  of  the  ancient  manu¬ 
scripts  of  the  Biblical  writings  and  a  survey  of 
ancient  and  modern  versions  of  the  Bible  down 
to  our  own  day.  Light  will  be  thrown  upon  our 
problem  also  by  the  quotations  from  the  Holy 
Scriptures  in  the  writings  of  the  Church  Fathers. 


PART  III:  HOW  WE  GOT 
OUR  BIBLE 


Chapter  XV 

THE  TRANSMISSION  OF  THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT  TEXT 

1.  Old  Testament  manuscripts.  For  more  than  four 
centuries  Bible  students  have  been  familiar  with  the 
printed  text  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  Before  the 
printed  Hebrew  Scriptures  lie  the  long  centuries  in  which 
these  writings  were  preserved  and  handed  down  in  manu¬ 
scripts.  How  old  are  the  extant  manuscripts  of  the  Old 
Testament?  Have  we,  perchance,  in  some  library  or 
museum  some  of  the  original  manuscripts  of  the  Old 
Testament  writers?  It  is  with  some  surprise  that  we 
learn  that  the  oldest  known  manuscripts  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  are  not  really  ancient.  In  Petrograd  there  is  a 
Prophet  codex  written  in  916  A.  D.  and  also  a  manu¬ 
script  of  the  entire  Old  Testament  written  in  1009  A.  D. 
In  comparison  with  the  antiquity  of  the  original  writings 
these  copies  seem  almost  modern.  We  have  New  Testa¬ 
ment  manuscripts  centuries  older  than  these.  In  curious 
wonder  we  ask.  How  were  these  writings  preserved  and 
handed  down  in  the  vast  interval  from  the  time  of  their 
original  composition  until  the  printing  of  the  Hebrew 
text,  in  the  fifteenth  century  of  our  era? 

We  must  begin  with  a  brief  inquiry  into  the  early 


216  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


manner  of  writing  Hebrew.  For  many  centuries  the 
Hebrew  was  written  with  consonants  only,  the  vowels 
being  supplied  by  the  reader.  It  is  as  if  we  were  accus¬ 
tomed  to  write  our  English  as  follows :  th  hrs  rns  fst 
(the  horse  runs  fast).  So  long  as  the  Hebrew  was  the 
vernacular  of  a  whole  people,  this  method  of  writing 
presented  no  very  serious  obstacles  to  the  clear  under¬ 
standing  of  the  meaning.  Even  in  English  such  a  mode 
of  writing  is  not  altogether  impracticable.  It  is  the 
method  of  much  shorthand  writing.  As  soon,  however, 
as  the  spoken  language  became  unfamiliar  to  the  Jews 
themselves,  the  uncertainties  of  a  merely  consonantal 
writing  began  to  appear.  And  as  different  scribes  inevi¬ 
tably  differed  here  and  there  as  to  which  of  two  or  more 
vowel  sounds  should  be  supplied,  it  was  clear  that  some¬ 
thing  must  be  done  to  remedy  the  confusion.  The  situ¬ 
ation  is  well  described  by  Professor  Robertson  Smith 
(“The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,”  pp.  50, 
51)  :  “Let  me  ask  you  to  realize  precisely  how  the  scribes, 
at  and  before  the  time  of  Christ,  proceeded  in  dealing 
with  the  Bible.  They  had  nothing  before  them  but  the 
bare  text  denuded  of  its  vowels,  so  that  the  same  words 
might  often  be  read  and  interpreted  in  two  different  ways. 
A  familiar  example  of  this  is  given  in  Heb.  11 :21,  where 
we  read  of  Jacob  leaning  upon  the  top  of  his  ^staff’;  but 
when  we  turn  to  our  Hebrew  Bible  as  it  is  now  printed 
(Gen.  47:31),  we  find  there  nothing  about  the  *staff^; 
we  find  the  ‘bed.’  Well,  the  Hebrew  for  ‘the  bed’  is 
hammittah,  while  the  Hebrew  for  ‘the  staff’  is  hammatteh. 
The  consonants  in  these  two  words  are  the  same,  the 
vowels  are  different.  But  the  consonants  only  were 
written,  and  therefore  it  was  quite  possible  for  one  person 
to  read  the  word  as  ‘bed,’  as  is  now  the  case  in  our  Eng- 


TRANSMISSION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  217 


lish  Bible,  following  the  reading  of  the  Hebrew  scribes; 
and  for  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  on  the 
other  hand,  to  understand  it  as  a  ‘staff,’  following  the 
interpretation  of  the  Greek  Septuagint.  Beyond  the  bare 
text,  which  in  this  way  was  often  ambiguous,  the  scribes 
had  no  guide  but  oral  teaching.  They  had  no  rules  of 
grammar  to  go  by ;  the  kind  of  Hebrew  which  they  them¬ 
selves  wrote  often  admitted  grammatical  constructions 
which  the  old  language  forbade,  and  when  they  came  to 
an  obsolete  word  or  idiom  they  had  no  guide  to  its  mean¬ 
ing,  unless  their  masters  had  told  them  that  the  pronunci¬ 
ation  and  the  sense  were  so  and  so.” 

The  need  of  indicating  the  vowel  sounds  was  keenly 
felt  wherever  there  was  serious  doubt  as  to  how  a  given 
text  was  originally  intended  to  be  read.  Now,  in  order 
to  supply  the  deficiency  of  the  vowels,  the  Jews  did  not 
invent  new  letters,  but  merely  added  little  marks  or 
“points”  above  and  below  the  letters  of  the  old  text. 
When  were  these  vowel  points  added?  The  Jews  have  a 
tradition  that  they  were  added  by  Ezra,  in  the  fifth  cen¬ 
tury  before  Christ,  and  that  he  was  fully  inspired  by  God 
in  this  work,  and  so  was  preserved  from  making  any 
mistakes.  It  was  only  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries  that  certain  French  scholars  showed  this  tradi¬ 
tion  to  be  without  foundation.  It  was  proved  that  the 
Masoretes  (that  is,  the  scribes  who  through  many  genera¬ 
tions  sought  to  establish  the  true  Masora,  or  “tradition”) 
added  the  vowel  points  more  than  a  thousand  years  after 
Ezra.  The  vowel  system  cannot  be  traced  farther  back 
than  the  seventh  century.  The  Masora  was  completed 
and  committed  to  writing  at  Tiberias  in  Palestine  at  the 
latest  before  the  close  of  the  ninth  century.  The  Masora 
consists  not  only  of  the  vowel  points  in  the  text,  but  also 


218  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


of  many  textual  notes  in  the  margin  and  at  the  foot  of 
the  page.  Now,  it  was  this  Masoretic  text  that  became 
the  received  text  for  Jews  and  Christians  alike;  and  the 
doctrine  of  its  infallibility  was  for  centuries  generally 
accepted.  When  criticism  began  to  show  that  there  were 
errors  in  this  text,  a  storm  of  protest  arose.  Multitudes 
of  good  men  fancied  that  the  life  and  health  of  religion 
were  imperiled,  if  the  infallibility  of  Holy  Scripture  was 
made  doubtful. 

The  Masoretes  wrought,  of  course,  as  best  they  could; 
and  to  them  and  to  a  multitude  of  Jewish  scholars  since 
their  time  we  must  accord  high  praise  for  their  scrupulous 
care  to  preserve  and  transmit  the  true  text  of  their  sacred 
books.  Yet  it  is  certain  that  this  period  of  extreme  care 
and  diligence  was  preceded  by  a  long  period  of  laxity,  in 
the  course  of  which  various  corruptions  found  their  way 
into  the  Hebrew  text.  It  was  only  after  the  mischief  had 
been  done  that  the  rabbis  undertook  a  work  which,  while 
guarding  the  text  against  further  corruptions,  only  tended 
to  fix  such  errors  as  had  already  slipped  in. 

Of  course,  the  errors  of  judgment  in  fixing  the  vowel 
points  are  not  the  only  errors  in  the  Old  Testament  text. 
Far  more  serious  are  the  errors  of  the  earlier  copyists. 
Let  us  strive  to  make  clear  to  our  minds  the  conditions 
under  which  the  books  had  to  be  transmitted  during  those 
earlier  centuries.  As  yet  there  was  no  “received  text,’^ 
and  no  group  of  scribes  cooperating  in  an  effort  to  keep 
the  text  pure.  The  individual  copyist  may  have  written 
from  dictation,  thus  being  liable  to  the  reader’s  errors 
as  well  as  his  own;  or,  if  working  without  the  help  of  a 
reader,  errors  would  still  be  sure  to  slip  in.  The  mistakes 
of  one  copyist,  moreover,  are  destined  to  be  perpetuated 
by  those  that  follow  him.  But  some  of  the  most  serious 


TRANSMISSION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  219 


corrruptions  of  the  text  seem  to  have  been  due  to  the 
misplacing  of  some  of  the  sheets  of  manuscripts.  The 
corruptions  in  some  of  the  books- — Micah,  for  example — 
are  seriously  disturbing  to  the  sense. 

On  the  whole,  however,  the  ancient  Hebrew  literature 
has  been  wonderfully  well  transmitted.  The  fact  that  we 
have  not  an  errorless  text  should  show  us  that  our  faith 
is  not  dependent  on  such  matters.  Of  course,  God  might 
have  miraculously  prevented  all  scribes  (and  printers) 
from  making  mistakes,  but  in  his  wisdom  he  has  not 
done  so. 

Since  the  time  of  the  Masoretes  the  copying  of  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  was  done  with  much  skill; 
many  of  the  manuscripts  were  beautifully  and  elaborately 
executed.  And  then  when  the  art  of  printing  threw  the 
copying  by  hand  into  disuse,  some  of  the  printed  editions 
were  very  well  done.  Abundant  photographic  reproduc¬ 
tions  of  specimens  of  notable  Hebrew  manuscripts  and 
of  important  printed  editions  may  be  found  in  the  Jewish 
Encyclopaedia  and  in  Geden’s  “Introduction  to  the  He¬ 
brew  Bible.” 

2.  Ancient  Versions  and  Their  Relation  to  the  Text, 
The  special  account  of  the  ancient  versions  of  the  Old 
Testament  belongs  in  a  later  chapter.  For  our  present 
purpose  it  is  necessary  merely  to  point  out  how  the  ancient 
versions  assist  in  determining  the  original  form  of  the 
Hebrew  writings.  When  we  have  fully  weighed  the  fact 
of  the  vast  interval  of  time  between  the  oldest  extant  and 
the  original  manuscripts  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  shall 
naturally  be  eager  to  consult  the  ancient  versions  in  order 
to  ascertain  how  far  they  seem  to  agree  with  the  Maso- 
retic  text.  For  it  is  manifest  that  the  text  used  by  the 
ancient  translators,  being  so  much  earlier,  was  probably 


220  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


closer  to  the  original  than  the  Masoretic  text.  In  the 
ancient  versions  we  find  reflected  the  text  that  was  in 
vogue  in  the  times  and  places  in  which  the  translations 
were  made.  By  inference  we  can  take  these  ancient  ver¬ 
sions  and  reconstruct  with  approximate  accuracy  the  text 
that  underlay  them. 

The  ancient  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  though  it  may  itself 
be  considerably  altered  from  its  original  form,  gives  us 
some  fair  notion  of  the  state  of  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch 
at  the  time  when  the  Samaritans  withdrew  from  fellow¬ 
ship  with  the  Jews.  When  the  first  copy  of  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch  was  brought  to  Europe,  in  1616  A.  D.,  it 
attracted  great  attention.  Scholars  observed  that  in  many 
places  it  agreed  with  the  ancient  Greek  version,  the 
Septuagint,  where  both  differed  from  the  Masoretic 
Hebrew  text;  but  it  also  bore  marks  of  careless  copying 
and  even  of  arbitrary  alterations  for  the  purpose  of  con¬ 
forming  the  text  to  the  alterations  in  religious  customs 
and  traditions  that  had  been  introduced  by  the  Samari¬ 
tans.  On  the  whole  the  official  Hebrew  text  is  doubtless 
much  the  purer  of  the  two;  yet  at  a  good  many  points  the 
Samaritan  version  affords  the  means  of  correcting  the 
Hebrew  text. 

Of  far  greater  importance  for  the  textual  critic  is  the 
Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  known  as  the 
Septuagint.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  text  of 
the  Septuagint  has  been  preserved  in  a  much  less  corrupt 
form  than  that  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  Still,  even 
here  errors  of  copyists  are  numerous  enough.  The  excel¬ 
lence  of  large  portions  of  the  Septuagint  version — for 
example,  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Psalms  are  generally 
well  done — helped  to  give  the  whole  version  a  very  wide 
acceptance  in  its  day.  On  the  other  hand,  the  poor  ren- 


TRANSMISSION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  221 


dering  of  other  books  and  especially  their  divergence 
from  the  recognized  Hebrew  originals,  and,  finally,  the 
spread  of  very  poor  copies  of  the  Septuagint,  led  to  other 
Greek  translations.  Of  such  there  were  three  of  impor¬ 
tance,  namely,  those  of  Aquila,  Theodotion,  and  Sym- 
machus. 

So  variant  and  uncertain  had  the  current  text  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures  become — especially  in  the 
Greek,  which  was  the  only  form  in  which  they  were 
known  to  most  Christians  in  the  early  centuries — that 
Origen  (185-254  A.  D.)  made  a  grand  effort  to  purify 
it.  He  prepared  a  vast  work  called  the  Hexapla  (i.e., 
‘‘sixfold”),  in  which  he  set  in  parallel  columns  the  fol¬ 
lowing  texts:  (1)  The  Hebrew  original,  (2)  a  Greek 
transliteration  of  the  same,  (3)  the  translation  of  Aquila, 
(4)  that  of  Symmachus,  (5)  that  of  the  Septuagint, 
(6)  that  of  Theodotion.  To  the  text  he  added  a  multi¬ 
tude  of  critical  marginal  notes.  The  work,  which  seems 
never  to  have  been  copied,  was  preserved  in  Caesarea  until 
the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century,  when  it  was  de¬ 
stroyed  in  the  Arabian  conquest  of  the  country.  A  few 
extracts  have  been  preserved  and  a  Syriac  version  of  the 
Prophets  and  Hagiographa  (Kethubim). 

These  versions,  together  with  a  number  of  important 
ones  based  upon  the  Septuagint,  all  shed  some  light  upon 
the  Hebrew  text.  This  is  true  especially  of  Jerome’s 
version,  which  came  to  be  known  as  the  Vulgate,  made 
in  the  years  390  to  405.  On  the  whole  this  is  a  magnifi¬ 
cent  work.  In  the  course  of  1500  years,  Jerome  was  the 
only  scholar  who  was  entirely  equal  to  such  a  task.  But 
the  translation  was  often  ill  copied,  and  the  copies,  more¬ 
over,  sometimes  showed  a  careless  mingling  with  portions 
of  the  earlier  Latin  versions.  Since  it  was  produced  at 


222  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


so  early  a  date,  and  since  its  rendering  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  was  based  largely  upon  the  Hebrew  text,  it  throws 
much  light  upon  the  state  of  that  text  as  it  existed  at 
the  time. 

Thus — in  manuscript  copies  and  through  versions — 
was  the  Old  Testament  brought  down  to  the  time  of  the 
invention  of  printing.  Until  comparatively  recently  all 
printed  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  followed  the  Maso- 
retic  text.  In  recent  years  critical  editions  of  the  Old 
Testament  have  been  undertaken. 


i 


Chapter  XVI 


THE  TRANSMISSION  OF  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT  TEXT 

1.  Manuscripts.  The  New  Testament  scriptures  were 
doubtless  originally  written  upon  papyrus.  Where  a 
single  sheet  was  insufficient,  the  writing  surface  was 
extended  at  pleasure  by  pasting  sheet  to  sheet;  the  whole 
then  was  rolled  upon  a  small  rod.  Only  the  inner  surface 
was  written  upon.  It  was  upon  such  papyrus  sheets  and 
rolls  that  the  apostles  and  evangelists  wrote,  and  upon 
such  were  their  books  copied  and  again  copied  in  the  first 
Christian  centuries.  Of  the  ancient  writings  on  papyrus 
multitudes  of  fragmentary  remains  have  been  discovered 
in  Egypt,  where  alone  of  all  the  seats  of  ancient  civiliza¬ 
tion  the  dryness  of  the  climate  made  such  a  thing  possible. 
A  very  few  of  these  fragments  contain  portions  of  the 
New  Testament.  These  papyrus  fragments  are  for  the 
most  part  older  than  the  oldest  New  Testament  parch¬ 
ment  codices.  In  general,  papyrus  was  preferred  to  the 
skins  for  the  reception  of  writing,  except  where  these 
were  prepared  with  special  skill  from  the  choicer  animals. 
At  about  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  however, 
the  use  of  parchment  began  to  come  into  special  favor, 
especially  for  books  which  were  designed  to  be  long  pre¬ 
served.  With  the  use  of  parchment  there  came  also  a 
change  in  the  outward  form  of  books.  Instead  of  the 
roll  came  the  codex;  the  sheets  were  placed  one  upon 
the  other  and  bound  in  what  we  know  as  book  form. 


223 


224  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

A  parchment  codex  could  be  wonderfully  executed  and 
ornamented.  By  the  use  of  a  rule  and  a  metal  stylus  the 
page  was  lined;  this  enabled  the  scribe  to  give  the  manu¬ 
script  a  pleasing  regularity.  The  letters — during  a  long 
period — were  of  the  uncial  type;  at  a  later  time  this  was 
superseded  by  the  freer  but  less  beautiful  cursive  script. 
Sometim^es  the  parchment  was  colored  with  purple  tints 
of  various  shades,  and  upon  this  they  wrote  with  gold 
or  silver  ink.  A  chief  feature  of  the  copyist’s  art  was 
the  drawing  of  elaborate  head-pieces  and  initials,  wholly 
or  partially  filled  in  with  gold  or  other  beautiful  colors. 

The  manuscripts  of  the  fourth  to  the  eighth  century, 
inclusive,  are  all  in  uncial  writing,  those  after  the  tenth 
century  only  in  the  cursive  style,  while  in  those  of  the 
ninth  and  tenth  centuries  both  styles  are  used. 

It  is  interesting  to  know  that  the  oldest  extant  Greek 
manuscripts  of  any  considerable  compass  are  copies  of  the 
New  Testament  scriptures.  The  science  of  Greek  palae¬ 
ography  is  so  well  developed  as  to  enable  scholars 
to  fix  the  age  of  a  Greek  manuscript  with  fairly  close 
approximation. 

The  whole  number  of  known  New  Testament  manu¬ 
scripts,  entire  or  partial,  is  about  2500.  Generally 
speaking,  the  oldest  manuscripts  are,  of  course,  the  most 
important,  since  they  have  naturally  suffered  less  than 
the  later  copies  from  the  inadvertencies  and  errors  of  the 
scribes.  The  number  of  the  uncial  manuscripts  (called 
also  majuscules,  i.e.,  manuscripts  written  with  capital 
letters)  is  small  in  comparison  with  that  of  the  cursives 
(called  also  minuscules)  ;  but  the  few  uncials  outweigh 
the  many  cursives. 

It  is  an  established  custom  to  designate  the  majuscules 
by  a  letter  of  the  Latin,  Greek  or  Hebrew  alphabet,  and 


TRANSMISSION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  225 


the  minuscules  by  Arabic  numerals.  Recently,  however, 
an  entirely  new  system  has  been  proposed  by  von  Soden 
in  his  elaborate  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  New  Testa¬ 
ment.  Whether  the  new  system  (which  is  based  upon 
the  idea  of  a  genetic  grouping)  will  displace  the  old  is 
doubtful. 

Of  the  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  only 
a  few  require  special  mention  here.  Two  of  these  belong 
to  the  fourth  century,  namely,  the  Codex  Vaticanus  (B) 
and  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  (designated  by  the  Hebrew 
letter  Aleph  s).  Both  are  very  clearly  and  beautifully 
written.  The  first  is  the  more  accurate  of  the  two,  but 
unfortunately  considerable  portions  of  the  (originally 
complete)  manuscript  have  been  lost.  The  existence  of 
the  Sinaitic  manuscript  began  to  come  to  light  in  1844 
through  the  researches  of  Tischendorf.  It  was  in  the 
library  of  the  Monastery  of  St.  Catherine  on  Mt.  Sinai 
that  he  first  got  a  glimpse  of  some  pages  of  the  codex, 
but  it  was  not  until  years  later  that  he  was  permitted  to 
examine  it  and  to  have  it  brought  to  Cairo  (in  1859) 
and  finally  to  have  it  presented  to  the  Czar  of  Russia. 
Since  then  it  has  reposed  in  the  library  in  Petrograd, 
where  it  is  esteemed  as  its  chief  treasure.  In  1862  the 
Czar  caused  it  to  be  published'in  a  sumptuous  edition,  in 
facsimile  type,  thus  making  it  accessible  to  the  scholarly 
world.  In  1889,  Pope  Leo  XIII.  had  the  Vatican  Codex 
published  in  a  beautiful  photographic  reproduction.  The 
Codex  Sinaiticus  has  the  distinction  of  being  our  only 
complete  uncial  manuscript  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  Alexandrian  manuscript  (A)  dates  from  the  fifth 
century,  and  ranks  in  importance  next  to  B  and  S . 
It  was  presented  to  Charles  I.  by  Cyril  Lucar,  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  in  1682,  and  is  preserved  in  the  British 


226  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

Museum.  It  lacks  the  most  of  Matthew  and  some  leaves 
from  John  and  2  Corinthians;  otherwise  it  presents  our 
New  Testament  writings  complete.  At  the  end  we  find 
the  First  Epistle  of  Clement  entire  and  a  portion  of  his 
Second  Epistle;  originally  the  manuscript  included  also 
the  Psalms  of  Solomon. 

A  fourth  manuscript  of  great  interest  is  the  Codex  of 
Ephraem  Syrus  (C).  It  is  a  palimpsest,  or  rescript.  It 
was  no  uncommon  practice,  on  account  of  the  costliness 
of  parchment,  to  rub  out  an  old  manuscript  in  order  to 
obtain  the  necessary  skin  for  a  new  writing.  In  many 
cases  the  older  writing  was  of  vastly  more  value  than  the 
new.  This  is  decidedly  the  case  in  the  present  instance. 
A  beautiful  Biblical  manuscript  of  the  sixth  or  possibly 
the  fifth  century  was  erased  to  make  room  for  some  theo¬ 
logical  treatises  of  Ephraem,  a  Syrian  church  doctor  of 
the  twelfth  century.  Only  by  the  application  of  chemicals 
was  it  possible  to  restore  the  earlier  writing  to  legibility. 
The  codex  of  Ephraem  is  in  the  National  Library  at 
Paris. 

The  four  manuscripts  just  noticed  include,  in  addition 
to  the  New  Testament,  also  the  Old  Testament  in  Greek. 

A  very  curious  but  important  uncial  manuscript  re¬ 
mains  to  be  mentioned.  It  is  the  Codex  Bezae  (D),  in 
the  University  Library  of  Cambridge.  It  was  presented 
to  the  University  in  1581  by  Theodore  Beza,  who  had 
obtained  it  from  the  monastery  of  St.  Irenaeus  at  Lyons 
in  1562.  It  was  written  in  the  sixth  century  and  in  the 
West.  It  is  a  Graeco-Latin  manuscript,  the  Greek  on  the 
left-hand  page,  the  corresponding  Latin  version  on  the 
right — only  that  the  Latin  does  not  always  exactly  corre¬ 
spond  to  the  Greek  text.  In  many  ways  it  is  a  curious 
document.  Would-be  correctors  have  frequently  tarn- 


TRANSMISSION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  227 

pered  with  the  manuscript.  Above  all,  we  are  struck  by 
a  number  of  interpolations  in  the  text,  the  most  of  them 
being  entirely  unsupported  by  other  manuscripts. 

These  five  are  by  far  the  most  important  of  the  hundred 
or  more  uncial  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament.  When 
we  turn  to  the  cursive  manuscripts  we  may  be  sure  that 
few  of  them  possess  great  value  for  determining  the  true 
text.  It  is,  however,  evident  that  a  comparatively  modern 
cursive  may  have  been  copied  from  a  very  ancient  and 
very  excellent  uncial  manuscript,  or  have  an  excellent 
pedigree.  Indeed,  this  has  been  shown  to  be  the  case 
with  several  of  the  cursives.  On  the  whole,  the  critical 
study  of  these  relatively  late  copies  of  the  New  Testament 
is  more  and  more  commending  itself  to  the  scholars  of 
our  day. 

Not  one  of  the  five  most  important  uncials  and  not 
many  even  of  the  best  cursives  were  known  to  the  trans¬ 
lators  of  the  King  James  Version  of  the  Bible  (published 
in  1611).  For  their  translation  of  the  New  Testament 
they  chiefly  used  the  third  and  fourth  editions  of  Eras¬ 
mus’  Greek  New  Testament. 

2.  The  Printed  Text.  Erasmus  in  1516  published  in 
Basel  his  editio  princeps  of  the  Greek  New  Testament. 
In  1522  appeared  Cardinal  Ximenes’  Complutensian 
Polyglot,  of  which  the  New  Testament  text  was  printed 
as  early  as  1514.  In  both  instances  the  text  was  based 
on  only  a  few  late  manuscripts.  The  later  editions  of 
Erasmus’  New  Testament  introduced  scarcely  any  im¬ 
provements.  Robert  Stephens’  New  Testament  in  Greek 
appeared  first  in  1546  (it  was  in  the  fourth  edition  of 
this  work,  1551,  that  the  indication  of  verses  was  first 
introduced).  Theodore  Beza  published  a  Greek  New 
Testament  in  1565,  of  which  several  editions  appeared, 


228  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

the  last  in  1598.  But  it  was  the  New  Testament  of  the 
Elzevir  brothers  in  Leyden  (from  1642  on)  that  finally 
won  the  whole  field  and  became  the  texHis  receptus  (the 
'‘received  text”).  This  text  maintained  its  place,  in  spite 
of  some  serious  attempts  at  textual  criticism,  until  about 
1830.  Until  that  time  the  editors  contented  themselves 
with  reproducing  the  textus  receptus  and  merely  adding 
at  the  foot  of  the  page  the  variant  readings.  In  1831 
Lachmann  broke  with  the  textus  receptus  and  gave  the 
world  the  first  critical  New  Testament  text  in  modern 
times.  Since  then  many  great  scholars  have  wrought  at 
the  task  of  restoring  the  primitive  text.  Among  the  most 
important  names  here  are  Tregelles,  Scrivener,  Westcott 
and  Hort  in  England,  and  Tischendorf,  Gregory  (an 
American),  Nestle,  and  von  Soden  in  Germany. 

3.  Early  Versions.  The  early  versions  of  the  New 
Testament  have  a  like  significance  for  ascertaining  the 
true  text  as  we  found  to  be  the  case  vv^ith  the  versions 
and  text  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  earliest  versions 
of  the  New  Testament  were  the  Old  Latin  and  the  Old 
Syriac.  These  belong  in  the  second  century.  To  the 
third  century  belongs  the  Coptic  version.  Then  follow, 
from  the  fourth  century  on,  the  Gothic,  Ethiopic,  Ar¬ 
menian,  Arabic,  Persian  and  other  versions.  Not  all  of 
them  were  made  directly  from  the  Greek;  some  are 
“daughter  versions.” 

The  value  of  a  translation  as  an  aid  in  getting  at  the 
true  text  of  the  original  depends  upon  the  age  of  the 
version  and  upon  our  ability  to  determine  where  the  ver¬ 
sion  was  made,  and  thus  ascertain  what  type  of  text  the 
translators  must  have  used.  Much  study  has  been  be¬ 
stowed  upon  the  problem  of  the  genealogy  and  geography 
of  the  texts.  So  far  has  New  Testament  textual  criti- 


TRANSMISSION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  229 


cism  advanced  that  experts  can  tell  us  with  approxi¬ 
mate  certainty  not  only  when  and  where  most  of  the 
translations  were  made,  but  also  the  type  of  text  that 
prevailed  in  a  given  locality.  Evidently  this  knowledge 
is  of  great  indirect  help  in  determining  the  true  original 
reading.  Direct  testimony,  however,  still  remains  the 
weightier,  and  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  manuscripts 
rather  than  the  versions.  Moreover,  every  sober  critic 
knows  that  we  cannot  infer  with  absolute  certainty  the 
exact  form  of  the  text  that  underlies  a  given  translation. 
The  difficulty  is  made  all  the  greater  because  but  few 
ancient  languages  were  rich  enough  to  afford  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  a  really  adequate  rendering  of  the  Greek. 

The  most  important  ancient  version  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  is,  of  course,  the  Vulgate  (i.e.,  the  Vernacular  or 
Common  Version).  The  Vulgate  rendering  of  the  New 
Testament  was  in  the  main  a  revision  of  the  Old  Latin 
(called  also  the  Itala)  ;  and  since  this  earlier  version  was 
not  very  carefully  done,  the  Vulgate  has  inherited  from 
it  a  good  many  faults.  It  will  be  of  interest  to  note  that 
about  8000  manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate  are  known. 

Of  great  interest  to  the  student  of  the  New  Testament 
text  are  the  Syriac  versions.  The  famous  Diatesseron 
(a  “Gospel  Harmony,”  or  “Four  Gospels  in  One”),  com¬ 
piled  by  Tatian  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century, 
widely  used  in  Syria  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries, 
and  known  to  Bible  scholars  until  the  fourteenth  century, 
has  been  lost.  We  have,  however,  Latin  and  Arabic 
translations  of  the  work,  together  with  an  Armenian 
version  of  St.  Ephraem’s  commentary  upon  it.  Of  the 
Old  Syriac  version,  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  two 
famous  manuscripts  (dating  from  the  fifth  century). 
One  of  these,  brought  from  Egypt  to  England,  was  pub- 


230  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


lished  by  Cureton  in  1858.  The  second  was  discovered 
by  Mrs.  Lewis  and  her  sister,  Mrs.  Gibson,  in  the  Con¬ 
vent  of  St.  Catherine  at  Mt.  Sinai  in  1892.  It  is  a 
palimpsest.  Inasmuch  as  it  represents  a  translation  of 
the  four  Gospels  made  in  the  second  century,  its  readings 
are  of  much  value  to  the  textual  critic. 

4.  Quotations  in  the  Church  Fathers.  Along  with  the 
manuscripts  and  versions  the  student  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  text  must  also  pay  heed  to  the  quotations  from  the 
Church  Fathers.  These  have  a  very  real  value  for  our 
purpose,  since  they  are  based  upon  texts  more  ancient 
than  any  manuscript  now  extant.  Yet  these  quotations 
must  be  used  with  caution;  for  it  is  evident  that  they 
may,  in  many  instances,  have  been  made  from  memory 
and  therefore  sometimes  inaccurately. 

All  these  witnesses  to  the  New  Testament  text  must 
be  faithfully  and  intelligently  used.  And,  indeed,  the 
text  of  no  other  ancient  writing  has  been  studied  with 
anything  like  the  zeal  and  patience  that  have  been  be¬ 
stowed  upon  the  text  of  the  New  Testament.  Moreover, 
in  most  instances  a  thorough  comparison  of  all  the  docu¬ 
mentary  testimony  makes  very  clear  what  the  original 
reading  must  have  been.  By  an  incredible  amount  of 
labor  a  vast  number  of  errors  have  been  corrected.  All 
recent  versions  of  the  New  Testament  have  been  based 
upon  a  critical  text. 

We  are  not,  however,  to  conclude  that  we  now  have, 
or  ever  shall  have,  an  essentially  perfect  text.  There  are 
uncertainties  that  can  never  be  removed.  These  are, 
indeed,  for  the  most  part  quite  unimportant.  Certainly 
not  a  single  fundamental  truth  of  the  Christian  faith  is 
seriously  involved  in  any  of  the  questions  of  textual 
criticism.  Nevertheless,  these  uncertainties  as  to  the  exact 


TRANSMISSION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  231 


form  of  the  original  text  remain.  This  state  of  affairs 
warns  us  not  to  be  beguiled  into  a  false  dogmatism  as 
to  the  formal  perfections  of  the  Bible.  The  Bible  is 
clearly  not  in  its  outward  state  a  miraculous  book.  In 
its  composition  and  transmission  it  has  been  subject  to 
the  same  general  conditions  as  have  obtained  in  the  case 
of  all  other  books.  Not  in  its  formal  aspects  but  in  its 
message  the  true  eminence  of  the  Bible  is  to  be  found. 


Chapter  XVII 

THE  BIBLE  VERSIONS :  BEFORE  WICKLIF 

We  have  made  a  rapid  survey  of  the  way  in  which  our 
Bible,  Hebrew  and  Greek,  was  handed  down  to  us.  It 
remains  for  us  to  trace  in  outline  the  history  of  the 
bringing  of  the  Bible  to  other  nations,  ancient  and 
modern,  who  spoke  neither  Hebrew  nor  Greek.  It  is  a 
wonderful  story,  marked  by  great  devotion  and  even 
heroism.  We  shall  have  space  for  only  very  brief  notices 
of  other  than  English  versions,  and  even  the  story  of  our 
English  Bible  can  here  be  told  only  in  outline. 

1.  Ancient  Versions  of  the  Old  Testament.  That  the 
Old  Testament  should  have  been  translated  at  all  into 
other  languages  is  a  fact  of  striking  significance.  It  was 
a  national  literature  and  not  designed  primarily  for  all 
races.  But  it  must  be  observed  that  the  earliest  versions 
were  not  designed  for  Gentiles,  but  in  one  instance  for 
the  Samaritans,  who  were  closely  related  to  the  Jews  and 
accepted  only  the  Pentateuch,  and  in  another  for  the  Jews 
of  the  Dispersion,  who  had  become  more  familiar  with 
Greek  than  with  Hebrew. 

The  notice  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  contained  in 
the  last  chapter,  may  suffice  for  this  important  ancient 
version  of  a  portion  of  the  Old  Testament.  Of  far 
greater  importance  in  other  regards  is  the  Greek  version 
of  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament,  known  as  the  Sep- 
tuagint.  This  version  derived  its  name  from  an  ancient 
legend  preserved  for  us  in  the  so-called  “Letter  of 


THE  BIBLE  VERSIONS:  BEFORE  WICKLIF  233 


Aristeas”  and  in  Josephus’  “Antiquities  of  the  Jews,” 
XII,  2  : 4.  According  to  this  account,  Ptolemy  Phila- 
delphus,  king  of  Egypt,  285-246  B.  C.,  being  zealous  for 
matters  of  learning  and  literature,  and  taking  pride  in  the 
great  library  at  Alexandria,  was  induced  by  his  librarian 
Demetrius  of  Phaleron  to  make  provision  for  the  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  renowned  for  their  wis¬ 
dom.  He  therefore  sends  ambassadors,  loaded  with  gifts, 
to  Eleazer,  the  High  Priest  at  Jerusalem,  and  requests 
him  to  send  in  return  a  copy  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
with  learned  men  able  to  translate  them  into  the  Greek. 
Eleazer  selects  72  able  scribes,  6  from  each  of  the  12 
tribes,  and  puts  into  their  hands  a  copy  of  the  Scriptures 
written  in  golden  letters.  Upon  their  arrival  in  Alexan¬ 
dria  the  72  scribes  are  brought  to  a  house  on  the  island 
Pharos,  where,  in  consultation  together,  they  accomplish 
their  task  faultlessly  in  just  72  days.  According  to  a 
later  form  of  the  legend,  the  72 — the  number  was  finally 
rounded  off  to  70 — were  placed  in  as  many  separate  cells 
and  at  length  each  came  forth  with  the  complete  transla¬ 
tion  of  the  whole  body  of  the  Scriptures.  Upon  com¬ 
parison  it  was  found  that  all  the  translations  were  exactly 
alike,  even  to  the  letter.  Thus  was  the  divine  inspiration 
of  their  work  established. 

That  there  is  little  truth  behind  this  fantastic  legend  is 
almost  certain.  It  is  clear  that  the  whole  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  not  translated  in  the  time  of  Ptolemy 
Philadelphus,  for  some  of  its  books  were  at  that  time  not 
yet  written.  It  is,  however,  almost  equally  clear  that  in 
the  course  of  his  reign  at  least  the  Pentateuch  was  trans¬ 
lated.  The  translation  of  the  remaining  books  soon  fol¬ 
lowed;  it  is,  at  any  rate,  a  fact  that  about  130  B.  C.  the 
grandson  of  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach  and  editor  of  the 


234  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


latter’s  book  of  “Wisdom”  knew  not  only  the  books  of 
the  Law  but  also  those  of  the  Prophets  and  other  Old 
Testament  writings  in  Greek  translation. 

What  may  we  fairly  conclude  as  to  who  the  translators 
were  and  as  to  the  circumstances  in  which  their  work  was 
done?  In  the  first  place,  it  is  clear  that  the  translation 
was  only  gradually  accomplished,  and  was  not  the  work 
of  a  group  of  scholars  in  mutual  consultation.  The 
quality  of  the  work  is  very  unequal.  In  some  instances 
it  is  slavishly  literal  and  again  it  is  wantonly  free.  Here 
and  there  considerable  additions  are  made.  In  the  second 
place,  it  is  clear  that  the  work  as  a  whole  was  undertaken 
on  behalf  of  Greek-speaking  Jews  in  Alexandria  and 
other  parts  of  Egypt — of  Jews  who  no  longer  could  read 
their  Scriptures  in  the  original.  At  the  same  time  there 
are  in  the  translation  signs  of  a  desire  to  commend  their 
Scriptures  to  the  surrounding  Gentiles,  for  here  and  there 
expressions  have  been  chosen  with  manifest  accom¬ 
modation  to  the  Greek  sensibilities.  Finally,  the  trans¬ 
lators  cannot  have  been  Palestinian  Jews,  because  they 
betray,  in  many  instances,  an  inadequate  knowledge  of  the 
Hebrew. 

Reference  has  already  been  made  in  the  chapter  on  the 
Transmission  of  the  Old  Testament  Text  to  other  Greek 
versions,  those  of  Aquila,  Theodotion  and  Symmachus. 
We  have,  however,  yet  to  note  five  translations  based  upon 
the  Septuagint:  (1)  the  Coptic  version  (the  Coptic  was 
one  of  the  languages  of  Egypt)  ;  (2)  the  Ethiopic  ver¬ 
sion;  (3)  the  Gothic  version  of  Ulfilas  from,  the  fourth 
century  (only  fragments  of  the  book  of  Nehemiah  have 
been  preserved;  (4)  the  Armenian  version  from  the  fifth 
century,  based  upon  the  text  of  Origen’s  Hexapla;  (5)  the 


THE  BIBLE  VERSIONS:  BEFORE  WICKLIF  235 

Old  Latin  version  (the  “Itala”),  probably  from  the  sec¬ 
ond  century. 

It  is,  however,  probable  that,  in  addition  to  the  Itala, 
there  were  several  other  old  Latin  versions,  for  the  frag¬ 
ments  which  have  been  preserved  show  marked  variations, 
even  where  they  are  renderings  of  the  same  passages. 
They  adhere  as  closely  as  possible  to  the  original.  In  spite 
of  this  fact,  which  in  itself  is  a  merit,  these  versions  more 
and  more  showed  their  inadequacy,  so  that  Pope  Damasus 
(366-384)  committed  to  Jerome  the  task  of  revising  it. 
Jerome  began  his  work  of  revision  with  the  help  of  the 
current  text  of  the  Septuagint  and  then  of  the  text  of 
Origen’s  Hexapla.  Soon,  however,  he  was  persuaded  of 
the  necessity  of  an  entirely  new  work.  Thus  arose  an 
essentially  independent  translation  from  the  original 
Hebrew.  It  was,  however,  a  translation  in  which  much 
use  was  made  of  the  Greek  versions,  especially  that  of 
Symmachus;  also  the  renderings  of  the  Itala  influenced 
Jerome.  Jerome’s  version,  it  should  be  remembered,  and 
some  of  the  others  included  also  the  New  Testament  with 
the  Old. 

It  would  be  hard  to  overestimate  the  historical  impor¬ 
tance  of  the  Vulgate.  It  exerted  an  immense  influence 
upon  the  later  versions  of  northern  and  western  Europe. 
Every  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  of  the 
New,  since  its  time  has  received  a  powerful  impress  from 
the  Vulgate.  But  its  significance  for  the  textual  criticism 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  considerably  qualified  by  the  fact 
that  Jerome  made  extensive  use  of  other  versions  and  so 
was  not  always  careful  to  follow  the  original  text  with 
absolute  faithfulness. 

Two  other  versions  of  the  Old  Testament  remain  to  be 
mentioned.  The  first  of  these  is  the  Peshitto,  that  is,  the 


236  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Old  Syriac  version;  the  Old  Testament  portion  of  it  dates 
probably  from  the  second  century,  and  is  the  work  of  a 
number  of  translators.  It  is  valuable  as  a  clew  to  the 
original  form  of  the  Hebrew  text.  Since,  however,  it 
shows  itself  to  have  been  influenced  by  the  Greek  trans¬ 
lation,  its  value  for  the  textual  critic  is  not  what  it  might 
have  been.  The  other  version  is  that  known  as  the  Tar- 
gums,  that  is,  translations  by  the  Jewish  scribes  into  the 
vernacular  Aramaic.  But  since  these  were  more  or  less 
free  paraphrases — they  were  never  meant  to  be  the  official 
text  for  the  people — they  throw  less  light  upon  the  origi¬ 
nal  text  than  one  might  have  expected. 

2.  Ancient  Versions  of  the  New  Testament,  For  a 
long  time  the  gospel  was  spread  chiefly  among  peoples  who 
understood  the  Greek  language.  There  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
a  very  definite  early  Christian  tradition  that  the  earliest 
Gospel  was  written  in  Aramaic  or  “Hebrew,”  but  we  are 
sure  that  these  first  records  were  soon  circulating  in  Greek 
versions,  the  Aramaic  originals  being  early  lost.  All  the 
primitive  Christian  literature  that  has  been  preserved  to 
us  is  exclusively  in  Greek. 

The  earliest  versions  of  the  New  Testament  were  the 
Old  Latin  and  the  Old  Syriac.  These,  together  with  the 
Coptic  version  and  those  made  still  later  into  the  Gothic, 
Ethiopic,  Armenian,  and  Persian  tongues,  have  already 
been  referred  to  in  our  study  of  the  transmission  of  the 
New  Testament  text.  We  should,  however,  bear  in  mind 
that  the  historical  significance  of  these  versions  is  not 
chiefly  to  provide  material  for  the  textual  critic.  These 
versions  have  a  great  interest  for  us  in  showing  the  power 
of  the  gospel  to  penetrate  into  all  nations  and  languages. 
The  version  of  St.  Jerome  is  by  far  the  most  important 
of  the  ancient  Latin  versions  of  the  New  Testament,  but 


THE  BIBLE  VERSIONS:  BEFORE  WICKLIF  237 

we  know  it  was  not  the  first.  But  even  the  “Old  Latin” 
version,  which  formed  the  basis  of  Jerome’s  work,  may 
not  have  been  strictly  the  first.  There  is  reason  to  believe 
that  portions  of  the  New  Testament  were  turned  into 
Latin  at  a  very  early  date  and  that,  on  the  basis  of  these 
there  grew  up — not  under  a  single  hand,  but  under  several 
— the  Old  Latin  version  (the  Itala).  Jerome’s  version, 
as  he  finally  sent  it  forth,  was  either  his  original  work  or 
at  least  his  own  revision  of  early  renderings.  This  version 
was  often  rather  carelessly  copied  with  the  result  that 
the  text  became  rather  uncertain.  In  1590  Pope  Sixtus  V. 
put  forth  a  corrected  edition.  This  edition  was,  however, 
far  from  perfect,  and  Clement  VIII.  the  successor  of 
Sixtus  V.,  almost  immediately  undertook  a  revision 
(1593-1598).  This  last  has  been  the  official  standard 
ever  since.  Yet  even  this  edition  has  much  need  of 
correction. 

3.  MedioBval  Bible  Versions  before  Wicklif.  The  im¬ 
pression  prevails  rather  widely  that  during  the  whole  of 
the  Middle  Ages  nothing  was  done  to  give  the  Bible  to 
the  people  in  the  vernacular  tongues.  This,  however,  is 
an  error.  Between  the  fourth  and  the  end  of  the  fifteenth 
century  no  fewer  than  sixteen  translations  of  the  Bible, 
or  portions  of  it,  were  made  into  the  principal  languages 
of  Europe.  Yet  it  is  true  that  during  all  the  Middle  Ages 
the  Bible  was  nowhere  the  people’s  book. 

Two  chief  causes  brought  about  this  deplorable  es¬ 
trangement  of  the  people  from  their  Bible.  One  was  the 
general  want  of  learning.  The  people,  for  the  most  part, 
could  not  read  any  book  whatsoever,  even  if  they  could 
have  afforded  to  possess  books — so  large  a  book  (or 
library)  as  a  manuscript  Bible  was  a  very  costly  thing. 
The  other  reason  was  that  the  whole  method  and  spirit  of 


238  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


the  Roman  church’s  dealings  with  the  laity  made  direct 
acquaintance  with  the  Bible  quite  unnecessary  to  them. 
Indeed,  the  church  denied  the  right  of  private  judgment 
in  matters  of  religion.  Although  the  Bible  was  a  book 
of  divine  inspiration,  the  laity  could  not  read  it  aright 
without  the  direct  guidance  of  the  clergy,  hence  the  Bible 
was  virtually  forbidden  to  the  laity. 

It  was  with  the  dawning  of  the  Protestant  Reformation 
that  the  grand  thought  of  giving  the  Bible  to  the  common 
people  began  to  be  realized.  The  Reformation  itself  was 
begotten  of  a  new  knowledge  of  the  Bible.  It  was  from 
the  direct  reading  of  the  New  Testament  that  Luther 
received  the  light  that  through  him  blazed  abroad  until 
half  of  Europe  was  flooded  with  the  word  of  the  gospel. 
Those  who  had  thus  found  the  light  in  the  Bible  were  then 
zealous  to  give  that  Bible  to  the  people. 

The  remains  of  German  translations  of  the  Bible  reach 
back  into  the  ninth  and  even  the  eighth  century.  The 
earliest  German  translator  known  to  us  by  name  was 
Notker  of  St.  Gall,  Switzerland  (died  1022),  His  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  Psalms  and  the  Song  of  Solomon  has  been 
preserved,  while  his  translation  of  Job  has  been  lost. 
After  him  came  Williram,  a  Bavarian  (died  1085),  from 
whom  we  possess  a  metrical  paraphrase  of  the  Song  of 
Solomon,  accompanied  by  a  prose  exposition  of  the  same. 
Somewhat  later  came  metrical  versions  of  Genesis  and 
other  portions  of  the  Bible,  mostly  by  unknown  hands. 
In  the  twelfth  century  the  metrical  paraphrases  give  way 
to  prose  renderings.  In  this  period  it  is  chiefly  the  his¬ 
torical  books  that  are  translated,  since  these  were  so  much 
more  easy  to  understand  than  the  prophets  and  some  of 
the  poetical  books.  Other  versions  followed  from  time  to 
time.  None  of  them,  however,  included  the  whole  Bible, 


THE  BIBLE  VERSIONS:  BEFORE  WICKLIF  239 

until  in  1466  there  appeared  in  Strassburg  the  first  printed 
German  Bible. 

But  these  repeated  efforts  to  give  the  Bible  to  the  Ger¬ 
man  people  remained  comparatively  fruitless  until  the 
Reformation.  In  other  countries  of  Europe  not  much  was 
done  in  this  direction  except  in  England,  where,  after  the 
labors  of  worthy  predecessors,  we  meet  the  heroic  figure 
of  John  Wicklif. 

4.  The  English  Bible  before  Wicklif. — It  was  John 
Wicklif,  “the  morning  star  of  the  Reformation,^*  who 
made  the  first  translation  of  the  whole  Bible  for  the  Eng¬ 
lish  people.  But  there  were  partial  English  versions — 
especially  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Psalter- — even  before 
Wicklif.  These  versions,  however,  were  designed  to 
assist  the  many  unlearned  members  of  the  clergy  rather 
than  to  make  the  Bible  directly  accessible  to  the  common 
people.  Very  few  of  the  laity  could  read — they  had  to 
obtain  their  knowledge  of  the  Bible  from  the  clergy.  A 
vernacular  version  would  have  answered  no  actual  de¬ 
mand  except  on  the  part  of  the  members  ol  the  clergy 
who  could  not  readily  understand  the  Latin. 

Before  there  was  ever  any  attempt  at  a  proper  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  Scriptures  into  Anglo-Saxon  the  Bible  was 
the  basis  of  much  that  was  sung  or  written.  The  Vener¬ 
able  Bede  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History  gives  us  a  very 
interesting  account  of  Caedmon  and  his  sacred  minstrelsy. 
Caedmon  was  a  cowherd,  more  than  1200  years  ago, 
attached  to  the  famous  Abbey  of  Whitby.  One  night 
he  was  present  at  a  feast  where  his  masters  and  even  some 
of  the  servants  were  amusing  themselves,  after  the  man¬ 
ner  of  the  time,  in  impromptu  song  and  easy  alliterative 
rhyming.  When  the  harp  came  toward  Caedmon,  he 
arose  from  the  board  and  returned  homeward.  But  sud- 


240  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


denly,  as  he  lay  asleep  in  the  stable,  he  was  aroused  by  a 
heavenly  glory,  and  there  appeared  unto  him  One  who 
had  been  cradled  in  a  manger  six  hundred  years  before. 
'‘Sing,  Caedmon,”  he  said,  “sing  some  song  to  me.” 
“I  cannot  sing,”  was  the  sorrowful  reply;  “for  this  cause 
it  is  that  I  came  hither.”  “Yet,”  said  he  who  stood  be¬ 
fore  him,  “yet  shalt  thou  sing  to  me.”  “What  shall  I 
sing?”  “The  beginning  of  created  things.”  And  withal 
a  divine  power  came  upon  him,  and  words  that  he  had 
never  heard  rose  up  before  his  mind.  The  vision  de¬ 
parted,  but  the  poetic  gift  remained.  Caedmon  on  the 
morrow  went  forth  a  mighty  poet.  Hilda,  the  abbess, 
heard  the  story  of  Caedmon’s  gift,  and  she  translated  for 
him  a  story  of  the  Scriptures,  which  he  soon  brought  back 
in  the  form  of  minstrel  song.  Other  portions  of  Scrip¬ 
ture  followed.  “He  sang  of  the  creation  of  the  world,  of 
the  birth  of  man,  of  the  history  of  Genesis.  He  sang,  too, 
the  Exodus  of  Israel  from  Egypt  and  their  entrance  into 
the  land  of  the  promise,  and  many  other  narratives  of 
Holy  Scripture.  Of  the  incarnation  also  did  he  sing,  and 
of  the  passion;  of  the  resurrection  and  ascension  into 
heaven;  of  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  the  Apostles.” 

While  Caedmon  was  not  a  translator  of  the  Scriptures, 
his  work  deserves  a  place  in  this  sketch,  because  it  shows 
in  what  manner  a  large  part  of  the  people  must  have 
obtained  their  knowledge  of  the  Bible  in  that  age. 

About  the  time  of  Caedmon’s  death,  early  in  the  eighth 
century,  certain  scholars  were  producing  Anglo-Saxon 
versions  of  the  Psalter  and  the  Gospels.  Of  these  by  far 
the  greatest  was  Bede  (d.  735  or  742?).  The  story  of 
his  life  and  work  is  both  impressive  and  charming.  He 
was  the  most  famous  scholar  of  his  day  in  Western 


THE  BIBLE  VERSIONS;  BEFORE  WICKLIF  241 


Europe,  and  he  made  the  monastery  of  Jarrow-on-the- 
Tyne  a  great  center  of  literature,  science  and  theology. 
We  possess  a  letter  written  by  his  pupil  Cuthbert  to  a 
fellow-student  that  gives  us  a  touching  account  of  the 
death  of  the  Venerable  Bede.  A  portion  of  the  letter 
follows.  It  shows  the  great  man’s  closing  days  and  hours 
to  have  been  spent  in  the  translation  of  the  Scriptures. 
“Our  father  and  master,  whom  God  loved,  had  translated 
the  Gospel  of  John  as  far  as  ‘What  are  these  among  so 
many?’  .  .  .  Then  came  the  Tuesday  before  the  Ascen¬ 
sion.  He  began  then  to  suffer  much  in  his  breath,  and  a 
swelling  came  to  his  feet,  but  he  went  on  dictating  to  his 
scribe.  ‘Lose  no  time,’  he  said ;  ‘I  know  not  how  long  I 
may  hold  out,  or  how  soon  my  Master  may  take  me.’  He 
lay  awake  the  whole  night  praising  God.  .  .  .  (On  the 
following  day,  Wednesday,  Bede  continues  his  dictation. 
As  the  sun  begins  to  set,  the  young  scribe  speaks. )  ‘There 
remains  yet  one  chapter,  master,  but  it  seems  very  hard 
for  you  to  speak.’  ‘No,  it  is  easy,’  Bede  replied:  ‘take 
your  pen  and  write  quickly.’  This  he  did.  .  .  .  ‘And 
now,  father,  there  is  still  one  sentence  unwritten.’  ‘Then 
write  quickly.’  .  .  .  In  a  few  minutes  the  youth  said, 
‘It  is  finished.’  ‘Thou  hast  spoken  truly,’  replied  Bede.’’ 
He  was  then  taken  to  the  window  where  he  had  often 
prayed,  and  with  the  words  of  the  Gloria  Patri  on  his  lips 
he  breathed  his  last. 

Among  the  Bible  translators  of  a  somewhat  later  period 
we  find  the  name  of  Alfred  the  Great.  Whether  in  his 
own  person  he  was  a  Bible  translator,  as  tradition  affirms, 
may  be  doubted.  But  certainly  he  was  zealous  for  the 
spread  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Bible.  The  Ten  Com¬ 
mandments  in  Anglo-Saxon  were  made  the  very  founda¬ 
tion  of  the  laws  of  his  realm.  Also  the  Lord’s  Prayer 


242  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


and  some  other  portions  of  the  Scripture  were  given  forth 
in  the  same  tongue. 

Not  the  earliest,  yet  by  far  the  most  celebrated,  of  the 
old  Anglo-Saxon  Bible  manuscripts  is  embodied  in  a 
splendid  illuminated  folio  known  as  the  Lindisfarne  Gos¬ 
pels.  In  its  original  form  it  was  not  an  Anglo-Saxon  but 
a  Latin  manuscript;  the  Anglo-Saxon  is  an  interlined 
addition  to  the  Latin  text.  The  Latin  manuscript  is  the 
work  of  Eadfrith,  who  afterwards  became  bishop  of 
Lindisfarne  (698-724).  It  is  written  on  vellum,  in 
double  columns,  and  in  a  singularly  beautiful  script.  The 
illuminated  initials  are  executed  with  great  skill.  Many 
years  afterward,  namely,  about  950,  Aldred  the  priest 
interglossed  the  Latin  text  with  an  Anglo-Saxon  render¬ 
ing.  This  only  slightly  marred  the  beauty  of  the  manu¬ 
script,  and  it  obviously  enhances  its  interest  in  other  re¬ 
spects.  After  escaping  destruction  in  many  a  perilous 
case,  it  is  now  preserved  in  the  British  Museum. 


Chapter  XVIII 

BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER 


5.  Wicklif  and  the  First  English  Bible. — New  Anglo- 
Saxon  versions  had  ceased  to  appear  about  the  close  of  the 
tenth  century.  The  lapse  of  interest  in  Bible  translation 
was  probably  due  in  the  first  instance  to  the  Danish 
invasion  of  England;  the  continuance  of  the  inactivity 
is  doubtless  to  be  ascribed  to  the  Norman  conquest 
(1066).  Saxon  prelates  were  displaced  by  Norman 
ecclesiastics,  and  the  Saxon  speech  and  Saxon  Bibles  were 
despised.  The  period  of  unsettled  life  and  thought  con¬ 
tinued  long  in  England.  Eventually,  however,  there 
emerged  an  England  that  had  overcome  the  feeling  of 
conflict  between  peoples  and  languages.  It  was  a  united 
England,  speaking  neither  the  old  Saxon  nor  the  old 
Norman-French  language,  but  a  language  which  we  call 
English.  From  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century 
the  changes  in  language  were  very  rapid;  in  the  same 
period,  too,  the  use  of  English  by  the  upper  classes  was 
rapidly  gaining  ground.  The  latter  part  of  the  fourteenth 
century  is  notable  for  the  beginnings  of  English  literature 
proper.  Sir  John  Mandeville  published  his  “Travels”  in 
1356,  and  Chaucer  wrote  toward  the  close  of  the  century. 
The  former  is  one  of  the  earliest  books  written  in  Eng¬ 
lish  (as  distinguished  from  Anglo-Saxon).  So  we  see 
that  Wicklif’s  Bible  (1380-1382)  belongs  to  the  first 
period  of  English  literature.  Had  a  version  been  put 
forth  a  few  decades  earlier,  it  must  have  been  over- 

243 


244  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


whelmed  in  the  tide  of  newly-forming  speech  and  thus 
have  been  virtually  lost  to  the  people.  But  Wicklif  came 
in  the  very  nick  of  time.  “If  Chaucer  is  the  father  of  our 
later  English  poetry,  Wicklif  is  the  father  of  our  later 
English  prose.  The  rough,  clear,  homely  English  speech 
of  the  ploughman  and  trader  of  the  day,  colored  with  the 
picturesque  phraseology  of  the  Bible,  is,  in  its  literary 
use,  as  distinctly  a  creation  of  his  own  as  the  style  in 
which  he  embodied  it,  the  terse  vehement  sentences,  the 
stinging  sarcasms,  the  hard  antitheses,  which  roused  the 
dullest  mind  like  a  whip”  (J.  R.  Green,  History  of  the 
English  People,  Vol.  1,  p.  489). 

The  life  of  John  Wicklif  (ca.  1320-1384)  fell  in  a 
time  of  grave  abuses  in  the  church  in  England.  The  peo¬ 
ple  numbered  about  two  millions,  and  the  clergy  between 
twenty  and  thirty  thousand.  These  owned  a  third  of  the 
soil ;  their  revenues  were  about  double  those  of  the  king. 
Church  patronage  was  a  papal  prerogative,  and  foreign 
ecclesiastics  were  appointed  to  English  livings.  In  spite 
of  the  widespread  distress  caused  by  the  Black  Death  the 
immense  papal  tribute  from  England  was  unabated.  In 
the  midst  of  these  conditions  Wicklif,  the  most  eminent 
of  Oxford  schoolmen  in  his  day,  fearlessly  took  up  the 
work  of  reformation.  Unlike  most  of  the  clergy  of  his 
time,  he  was  an  earnest  and  genuine  Bible  Christian. 
From  the  simple  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
he  had  made  his  own  rule  of  life,  he  looked  for  a  revival 
of  religion  purged  of  corruptions  and  abuses.  To  this 
end  he  earnestly  desired  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  should 
be  heard  and  read  by  the  people,  insisting  that  all  Christian 
people  “ought  much  to  travail  night  and  day  about  the 
text  of  Holy  Writ,  and  namely  (chiefly)  the  gospel  in 
their  mother  tongue.”  He  took  a  lively  interest  also  in  the 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  245 


political  problems  of  his  day.  He  was  a  leader  in  the 
protests  of  the  English  people  against  the  aggressions  of 
the  papal  see.  On  this  account  he  was  sent,  along  with 
others,  as  envoy  to  Bruges  in  1374  to  treat  with  the  papal 
legate  on  Rome’s  disregard  of  the  enactments  of  the  Eng¬ 
lish  Commons. 

On  his  return  the  King  made  him  rector  of  Lutterworth 
near  Oxford.  Here  he  founded  a  fellowship  of  Poor 
Preachers.  Henceforth  until  his  death  he  toiled  more 
assiduously  than  ever  for  the  revival  of  religion  and  the 
reformation  of  the  church.  Naturally  his  efforts  met  with 
much  opposition.  His  Poor  Preachers  the  Bishops  re¬ 
garded  as  pestilent  hedge-creepers,  "sons  of  perdition 
under  the  veil  of  great  sanctity.”  But  the  common  people 
and  not  a  few  of  the  people  of  learning  and  rank  recog¬ 
nized  their  worth.  It  may  well  have  been  one  of  this 
group — some  have  suggested  it  may  have  been  Wicklif 
himself — whom  Chaucer  portrayed  in  his  description  of 
the  '‘poor  parson,”  the  “good  man  of  religion,”  who  in 
all  weathers  traveled  staff  in  hand  to  the  widely-sundered 
houses  in  his  parish,  and  “taught  Christ’s  love,  but  first  he 
followed  it  himself.”  Wicklif ’s  boldness  and  activity 
.with  tongue  and  pen  against  religious  errors  and  abuses 
naturally  led  to  his  arraignment  for  heresy.  And  indeed 
his  doctrines  were  in  many  points  opposed  to  the  prevail¬ 
ing  views  in  the  church.  It  is,  however,  probable  that  his 
unorthodox  views  could  have  been  tolerated  but  for  the 
sharpness  of  his  polemics,  which  caused  personal  enmities. 
He  denounced  the  pretensions  of  the  popes  to  temporal 
supremacy;  a  reprobate  pope  had  no  rightful  power  over 
the  faithful  in  Christ.  He  insisted  that  the  pope  might  be 
rebuked  by  cleric  or  layman;  that  churches  habitually 
delinquent  in  ministering  to  the  people  might  be  deprived 


246  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


of  their  revenues ;  that  friars  should  work  for  their  living. 
He  repudiated  the  prevailing  doctrine  of  the  mass  and  of 
the  confessional.  The  pope,  he  declared,  had  no  power  to 
excommunicate  a  man,  “unless  he  was  first  excommuni¬ 
cated  by  himself.”  The  Bible,  he  affirmed,  was  the  one 
ground  of  faith.  The  broad  recognition  of  this  prin¬ 
ciple  carried  with  it  the  gradual  repudiation  of  the  whole 
Romish  system,  that  is,  of  all  that  was  peculiar  to  Rome. 
He  desired  that  after  Urban  there  should  be  no  other 
Pope,  but  “Christendom  ought  to  live,  after  the  manner  of 
the  Greeks,  under  its  own  laws.” 

On  two  notable  occasions  Wicklif  was  publicly  ar¬ 
raigned  for  alleged  heresies.  On  both  occasions  he 
escaped  with  his  life;  on  the  second  trial,  however  (at 
Blackfriars  Monastery  in  London,  in  May,  1378),  his 
teachings  were  condemned,  and  a  few  days  afterwards 
he  was  excommunicated.  That  he  was  not  put  to  death  is 
ascribed  chiefly  to  such  powerful  supporters  as  John  of 
Gaunt  and  the  Queen ;  but  it  is  probable  that  the  weaken¬ 
ing  of  ecclesiastical  authority  through  the  Great  Schism 
was  also  to  Wicklif ’s  advantage.  When  the  hearing  had 
been  concluded,  Wicklif,  though  condemned  and  excom¬ 
municated,  was  allowed  to  return  to  his  quiet  parish  in 
Lutterworth. 

For  years  Wicklif  had  been  an  ardent  student  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  How  fully  he  relied  upon  its  teachings 
may  be  seen  in  the  fact  that  in  a  single  volume  from'  his 
hand  there  are  seven  hundred  quotations  from  the  Bible. 
But  the  thing  that  lifts  him  into  the  rank  of  one  of  the 
greatest  individual  forces  in  religious  history  is  his  cham¬ 
pionship  of  the  right  of  the  people  to  the  open  Bible. 
The  Sacred  Scriptures,”  he  said,  “are  the  property  of  the 
people,  and  one  which  no  one  should  be  allowed  to  wrest 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  247 


from  them.”  And  so  it  came  about  that,  as  he  drew  near 
the  close  of  his  life,  he  perceived  that  he  could  do  no  other 
work  comparable  to  giving  the  Bible  to  the  people  in  their 
own  tongue. 

In  spite  of  his  greatness  in  many  things,  Wicklif  was 
not  the  man  to  bring  about  a  radical  reformation  of  the 
church.  He  was  essentially  a  brave  fighter,  but  he  was 
not  a  constructive  thinker  and  leader.  Nor  had  he  clearly 
grasped  the  deepest  principles  out  of  which  an  effectual 
reformation  must  spring.  Besides,  the  time  was  not  yet 
ripe;  and  the  preachers,  who  at  the  first  were  so  nobly 
inspired  by  Wicklif,  afterwards  in  many  instances  ran  into 
fanaticism  and  excesses. 

Returning  to  Lutterworth  from  his  trial  at  Blackfriars, 
Wicklif  gave  himself  with  the  utmost  ardor  to  the  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  Bible.  About  the  year  1380 — the  date  can¬ 
not  be  absolutely  fixed — the  New  Testament  was  com¬ 
pleted.  About  two  or  three  years  later  (1382  or  1383) 
the  whole  Bible  was  in  the  hands  of  the  English  people  in 
their  own  speech.  Wicklif  himself  is  believed  to  have 
translated  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  with  but  little 
assistance  from  other  scholars;  the  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  the  work  of  several  helpers,  chiefly  Nicho¬ 
las  Hereford,  one  of  Wicklif’s  Oxford  disciples.  A 
revision  and  correction  of  the  translation  was  issued  in 
1388;  it  is  ascribed  to  John  Purvey.  The  anonymous 
reviser  states  that  with  much  labor  and  with  the  aid  of 
“manie  gode  felawis  and  kunnynge  at  the  correccioun  of 
his  translacion”  the  work  was  duly  finished. 

Wicklif’s  Bible  was  not  printed  until  1850.  As  to 
extant  manuscripts  of  the  same,  about  170  (partial  or 
complete)  are  known;  the  most  of  these  give  not  the 
original  Wicklif  but  Purvey’s  revision. 


248  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


On  the  last  Sunday  of  the  year  1384  Wicklif  was 
smitten  with  the  palsy  in  the  midst  of  the  celebration  of 
the  Eucharist.  He  remained  speechless  until  his  death 
on  the  last  day  of  the  year.  The  hatred  of  his  doctrines 
and  even  of  his  work  as  Bible  translator  continued  with 
little  abatement  for  many  years.  Bitter  persecutions  fol¬ 
lowed  his  adherents  the  Lollards;  and  after  forty-four 
years  his  remains  were  exhumed  and  burnt  and  his  ashes 
thrown  into  the  brook  at  Lutterworth. 

Wicklif  prefixed  a  prologue  or  argument  to  each  book 
in  his  version ;  some  of  these  prologues  are  very  interest¬ 
ing.  He  also  wrote  a  noteworthy  “Apology,”  in  which  he 
says :  “O  Lord  God !  sithin  at  the  beginning  of  faith,  so 
many  men  translated  into  Latin  to  great  profit  of  Latin 
men;  let  one  simple  creature  of  God  translate  into  English 
for  Englishmen.  For  if  worldly  clerks  look  well  their 
chronicles  and  books  they  shoulden  find  that  Bede  trans¬ 
lated  the  Bible  and  expounded  much  in  Saxon,  that  was 
English  either  common  language  of  this  land  in  his  time. 
And  not  only  Bede,  but  King  Alfred  that  founded  Oxen- 
ford,  translated  in  his  last  days  the  beginning  of  the 
Psalter  in  Saxon,  and  would  more  if  he  had  lived  longer. 
Also  Frenchmen,  Beemers,  and  Britons  han  the  Bible 
and  other  books  of  devotion  translated  into  their  mother 
language.  Why  shoulden  not  Englishmen  have  the  same 
in  their  mother  language?  I  cannot  wit.”  (The  spelling 
is  in  the  main  modernized.) 

Wicklif ’s  translation  was,  of  course,  based  upon  the 
Vulgate.  Probably  no  man  in  England  in  his  day  would 
have  been  competent  to  undertake  a  translation  out  of  the 
original  Hebrew  and  Greek.  But  while  Wicklif ’s  ver¬ 
sion  had  not  the  merit  of  the  most  critical  scholarship,  it 
shows  the  admirable  qualities  of  terseness,  vigor  and 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  249 


imagination.  Later  translators  owed  not  a  little  to  his 
happy  renderings. 

A  few  brief  specimens  of  Wicklif’s  work  will  be  of 
interest.  The  first  is  from  the  fourth  chapter  of  Mark, 
at  the  beginning. 

And  eft  Jhesus  bigan  for  to  teche  at  the  see ;  and  myche 
cumpany  of  peple  is  gedrid  to  hym,  so  that  he,  stying 
into  a  boot,  sat  in  the  see,  and  al  the  cumpany  of  peple 
was  about  the  see,  on  the  lond.  And  he  taughte  hem  in 
parablis  many  thingis.  And  he  seide  to  hem  in  his 
techynge,  Heere  yee.  Loo!  a  man  sowyinge  goth  out 
for  to  sowe;  and  the  while  he  sowith,  an  other  seed  felde 
aboute  the  way,  and  bryddis  of  heuene  (or  of  the  eire) 
camen  and  eeten  it.  Forsothe  an  other  felde  doun  on 
stony  placis,  wher  it  had  nat  myche  erthe;  and  anoon  it 
sprung  vp,  it  welwide  for  heete,  and  it  dried  vp,  for  it 
hadde  not  roote.  And  an  other  felde  doun  into  thornes, 
and  thornes  stieden  vp,  and  strangliden  it,  and  it  gaue 
not  fruyt.  And  an  other  felde  doun  in  to  good  lond,  and 
it  gaue  fruyt,  styinge  vp,  and  wexinge ;  and  oon  broughte 
thirtty  fold,  and  oon  sixtyfold,  and  oon  a  hundridfold. 
And  he  seide.  He  that  hath  eris  of  heering,  heere  (Mk. 
4:1-9). 

The  following  is  the  rendering  of  Matt.  3 :  1-6 :  In 
thilke  dayes  came  Joon  Baptist  prechynge  in  the  desert 
of  Jude,  saying,  Do  ye  penaunce:  for  the  kyngdom  of 
heuens  shall  neigh.  Forsothe  this  is  he  of  whom  it  is 
said  by  Ysaye  the  prophete,  A  voice  of  a  cryinge  in 
desert,  Make  ye  redy  the  wayes  of  the  Lord,  make  ye 
rightful  the  pathes  of  hym.  Forsothe  that  ilke  Joon 
hadde  cloth  of  the  heeris  of  cameylis  and  a  girdil  of  skyn 
about  his  leendis;  sothely  his  mete  weren  locustis  and 
hony  of  the  wode.  Thanne  Jerusalem  wente  out  to  hym, 


260  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


and  al  Jude,  and  al  the  cuntre  about  Jordan,  and  thei  weren 
crystened  of  hym  in  Jordan,  knowlechynge  there  synnes. 

No  other  noteworthy  attempt  to  translate  the  Bible  into 
English  was  made  after  Wicklif’s  time  until  some  decades 
after  the  introduction  of  printing.  This,  of  course,  was 
due  in  part  to  the  relative  adequacy  of  Wicklif’s  version, 
but  also  in  part  to  the  church’s  strict  prohibition  of  all 
translating  or  expounding  of  the  Bible  in  the  vulgar 
tongue  without  special  permission  from  the  proper  eccles¬ 
iastical  authorities.  Such  a  decree  was  issued  in  1408  at 
Oxford  by  the  Provincial  Council.  And  so  almost  a  cen¬ 
tury  and  a  half  passed  before  the  appearance  of  the  next 
great  figure  in  the  history  of  the  English  Bible — William 
Tindale.  But  before  Tindale  comes  Luther  in  Germany, 
whose  work  as  a  Bible  translator  has  been  of  incalculable 
importance. 

6.  Luther  and  the  German  Bible. — In  Germany  the 
various  efforts  before  the  time  of  Luther  to  give  the  Bible 
to  the  common  people  were  vigorously  opposed  by  the 
Church.  In  1486  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz  issued  a 
decree  forbidding  the  printing  of  the  Bible  in  German. 
He  declared  that  the  noble  Greek  and  Latin  languages 
could  not  be  rendered  through  the  rude  medium  of  the 
German;  and,  moreover,  the  laity  in  any  event  could  not 
understand  the  Scriptures  except  as  duly  explained  by  the 
clergy.  But  the  tide  could  not  be  stemmed.  All  the  con¬ 
ditions  of  the  religious  and  intellectual  life  of  the  people 
were  such  as  to  make  futile  every  effort  to  suppress  the 
growing  desire  to  hear  and  read  the  Scriptures  in  the 
common  tongue. 

In  March,  1517  (i.e.,  some  seven  months  before  the 
posting  of  the  Ninety-five  Theses),  Luther  published  his 
version  and  exposition  of  the  Seven  Penitential  Psalms, 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  251 


then  in  1518  the  Lord’s  Prayer  and  Psalm  110.  Gradu¬ 
ally  the  idea  of  a  complete  translation  of  the  Bible  matured 
in  his  mind.  He  began  with  the  New  Testament.  The 
work  was  accomplished  largely  in  his  room  in  the  Wart- 
burg,  near  Eisenach,  in  the  Thuringian  forest,  where  he 
was  kept  for  some  time  under  the  protection  of  Frederick 
the  Elector  of  Saxony.  On  the  22nd  of  September,  1522, 
he  issued  the  New  Testament;  the  Old  Testament,  includ¬ 
ing  the  Apocrypha,  was  published  twelve  years  later. 

Luther  translated  the  New  Testament  without  assist¬ 
ance,  using  Erasmus’  edition  of  the  Greek  New  Testa¬ 
ment  for  a  text.  For  the  Old  Testament,  however,  he 
gladly  availed  himself  of  the  help  of  various  scholars. 
The  text  used  was  a  Hebrew  Bible  printed  in  Brescia, 
Italy,  in  1494.  The  work  on  the  Old  Testament  was  done 
chiefly  in  Wittenberg,  where  (as  before  his  conflict  with 
Rome)  Luther  was  professor  of  theology.  Here  from 
week  to  week  he  gathered  his  friends  together  in  his  own 
house  for  his  “Collegium  Biblicum’’ — Melanchthon  and 
Cruciger,  and  Bugenhagen,  and  various  Jewish  rabbis. 
And  how  they  toiled  to  make  the  Hebrew  writers  speak 
German!  Luther  has  given  us  a  lively  though  brief 
account  of  his  work.  It  was,  he  says,  his  constant  habit 
“to  look  men  everywhere  in  the  mouth’’  in  order  to  learn 
how  they  expressed  themselves.  “Not  infrequently  we 
sought  and  inquired  two,  three,  and  four  weeks  for  a 
single  word,  and  even  then  sometimes  failed  to  find  it.” 
When  we  make  clear  to  ourselves  how  very  inadequate 
was  the  philological  apparatus  of  the  time,  we  shall  begin 
to  be  able  to  appreciate  Luther’s  stupendous  work  as  Bible 
translator.  On  this  point  the  poet-scholar  Klopstock 
wrote :  “Let  no  one  that  knows  what  language  is  come  into 
Luther’s  presence  without  reverence!  In  no  other  nation 


252  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


has  a  man  done  so  much  in  the  forming  of  its  language.’* 
But  Luther  had  gifts  as  a  translator  that  quite  transcend 
mere  scholarship.  He  was  a  man  of  large  and  robust 
personality,  a  man  of  the  broadest  human  sympathy  and 
of  a  fine  poetic  feeling.  And  then,  above  all,  he  had  a 
devout  and  fervent  Christian  spirit.  All  these  qualities 
go  to  make  up  the  ideal  translator  of  the  Bible,  and  no 
other  man  in  modern  times  so  united  these  qualifications 
in  his  own  person  as  Luther  did. 

Luther’s  Bible  instantly  found  the  widest  acceptance 
among  the  German  people.  A  second  edition  of  the  New 
Testament  had  to  be  issued  after  three  months,  and  be¬ 
fore  the  publication  of  the  Old  Testament  Luther  had 
issued  seventeen  editions  of  the  New  Testament,  to  say 
nothing  of  some  fifty  reprints  by  others.  It  has  main¬ 
tained  its  place  as  the  Bible  of  German  Protestants  until 
this  day.  The  standard  text  is  that  prepared  by  Canstein 
and  others  (1667— 1719);  it  is  merely  a  corrected  text, 
with  modernized  spelling. 

Luther’s  Bible  was  almost  the  creator  of  the  modern 
German  language.  Up  to  the  time  of  this  great  work 
the  German  people  had  no  standard  of  speech;  every 
region  had  its  peculiar  dialect.  Luther  chose  as  his 
medium  the  Saxon  dialect.  Under  his  hand  its  plastic 
susceptibilities  were  wonderfully  developed.  He  enriched 
its  vocabulary  by  expressions  borrowed  from  many  circles 
and  from  many  quarters.  Take  him  all  in  all,  Luther  is 
the  greatest  of  Germans.  Dollinger  (a  Roman  Catholic 
and  later  a  leader  of  the  “Old  Catholic  Church”)  said 
of  Luther :  “It  was  Luther’s  supreme  intellectual  ability 
and  wonderful  versatility  that  made  him  the  man  of  his 
age  and  of  his  nation.  .  .  .  He  gave  more  to  his  nation 
than  any  other  one  man  ever  did- — slanguage,  popular 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  253 

education,  the  Bible,  sacred  song.  ...  It  was  he  who 
put  a  stamp  upon  the  German  language  as  well  as  upon 
the  German  character.  And  even  those  Germans  who 
heartily  abhor  him  as  a  great  heretic  and  betrayer  of 
religion  cannot  help  speaking  his  words  and  thinking 
his  thoughts.’* 

As  was  to  be  expected,  the  authorities  of  the  Roman 
Church  were  very  hostile  to  Luther’s  Bible.  They  felt 
it  to  be  a  work  animated  by  the  spirit  of  heresy;  one  of 
their  scholars  pointed  out  1,400  heresies  and  falsehoods 
in  the  New  Testament  alone.  It  was  particularly  offen¬ 
sive  to  them  that  Luther  had  translated  directly  from  the 
original  Hebrew  and  Greek  instead  of  the  standard  Vul¬ 
gate.  They  determined,  therefore, — though  with  reluc¬ 
tance — to  meet  the  arch-heretic  with  an  orthodox  version. 
This  plan  they  carried  out,  not  by  making  an  independent 
version,  but  by  “correcting  Luther’s  Bible  according  to 
the  Vulgate.”  But  the  Catholic  German  Bible  met  with 
very  little  popular  favor. 

Luther’s  version  was  a  powerful  influence  in  all  sub¬ 
sequent  work  of  Bible  translation  in  all  languages.  In 
England,  Holland,  France — indeed,  in  all  the  countries  of 
Western  and  Northern  Europe — its  influence  has  been 
immense. 

7.  Before  turning  to  Tindale  in  England,  it  will  be 
found  convenient  briefly  to  sketch  the  work  of  Bible 
translation  in  other  countries  of  the  Continent  outside  of 
Germany.  Less  brilliant,  yet  not  less  loyal,  were  the 
efforts  to  give  the  Bible  to  the  people  in  the  Dutch  lan¬ 
guage.  As  in  Germany  so  also  in  Holland  there  was  a 
long  period  of  translating  portions  of  the  Scriptures  for 
the  common  people — Rhyme-Bibles  and  the  like.  After 
the  invention  of  printing  there  were  Dutch  Bibles  from 


254  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


the  years  1477-1479,  translated  from  the  Vulgate.  A 
better  version  from  the  Vulgate  was  issued  in  1516.  In 
the  same  year  Erasmus  published  a  Dutch  translation  of 
the  New  Testament  from  the  Greek.  When,  however, 
Luther’s  New  Testament  became  known,  it  was  immedi¬ 
ately  (1523)  translated  into  the  Dutch  and  published  at 
Antwerp  and  Amsterdam.  It  was  far  more  in  demand 
than  Erasmus’  version.  Again  in  1834  Luther’s  Old 
Testament  was  made  the  basis  of  a  Dutch  version.  In 
1526  the  first  complete  Dutch  Bible  was  published  at 
Antwerp  by  Jacob  Liesveldt.  The  translators  are  un¬ 
named.  This  version  also  was  based  upon  Luther’s  Bible, 
so  far  as  that  had  been  issued;  for  the  rest  it  was  based 
upon  an  older  German  version.  A  sixth  edition  of  this 
work,  carefully  corrected,  was  published  at  Antwerp  in 
1542  and  became  the  standard  version  for  the  Nether¬ 
lands.  As  the  notes  were  frankly  anti-Romish,  the 
Catholic  Church  issued  injunctions  forbidding  anyone  to 
read  it.  A  canon  of  Louvain  warned  the  people  against 
the  Liesveldt  Bible  as  being  a  translation  “not  from  the 
Latin,  but  from  a  foreign  Bible,  which  had  been  trans¬ 
lated  into  German  by  M.  Luther  and  some  others,  helpers 
of  his,  notorious  and  damned  heretics  of  our  times,  who, 
as  they  are  rejectors  of  the  holy  Church,  have  Germanized 
the  Bible  out  of  different  new  translations,  not  following 
the  old  Latin  or  Vulgate  of  the  universal  Roman  Church, 
and  thus  have  they  in  many  places  stated  things  differently 
from  what  is  contained  in  the  Bible,  and  have  perverted 
the  Holy  Scripture  in  such  a  way  as  to  support  their  evil 
notions.”  The  first  warnings  not  proving  effectual,  it 
was  announced  that  all  who  refused  to  burn  heretical 
Bibles  should  themselves  be  burned  at  the  stake.  In  1545 
Liesveldt  himself  was  seized  and  beheaded  because  he  had 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  25& 


inserted  a  marginal  note  in  his  edition  of  the  Bible  declar¬ 
ing  that  our  salvation  depends  on  Christ  alone.  But  of 
course  the  martyrdom  served  only  to  intensify  the  popular 
interest  in  the  Bible  in  the  vernacular. 

The  immense  demand  for  the  “heretical”  Bibles  soon 
led  Roman  Catholic  scholars  to  issue  an  edition  corrected 
according  to  the  Vulgate.  Several  other  Protestant  re¬ 
visions,  based  upon  the  German  versions,  followed  until 
in  1591  Philip  de  Marnix,  Lord  of  St.  Aldegonde  (re¬ 
ferred  to  either  as  Marnix  or  St.  Aldegonde)  began  a 
translation  from  the  original  tongues.  It  was  never  com¬ 
pleted.  Marnix’s  work  was  scholarly,  but  wanting  in 
warmth  and  spiritual  insight.  It  rendered  a  good  service, 
however,  and  was  the  forerunner  of  the  excellent  Dutch 
authorized  version  published  in  1637.  The  undertaking 
to  make  a  really  adequate  translation  was  set  in  motion 
by  the  National  Synod  of  Dort  (Dordrecht)  in  1618. 
The  company  of  translators  was  perhaps  the  best  that  the 
nation  could  afford.  Their  work,  though  opposed  (as 
every  new  version  has  been)  by  the  unlearned,  soon  won 
its  way  to  universal  esteem.  For  scholarly  accuracy,  no 
version  surpassed  it  until  the  various  “revised  versions” 
of  the  most  recent  decades.  It  remains  the  standard 
Dutch  version  until  this  day. 

The  history  of  the  French  versions  is  of  far  less  in¬ 
terest  than  the  importance  of  the  French  nation  would 
lead  us  to  expect.  Yet  we  must  remember  that  France 
is  a  Catholic  country,  and  in  no  Catholic  country  has  the 
work  of  Bible  translation  been  pursued  with  the  vigor 
that  is  characteristic  of  the  work  in  Protestant  countries. 

As  in  all  countries,  so  also  among  the  French  there 
were  partial  translations  of  the  Bible  in  the  Middle  Ages. 
The  earliest  known  translations  date  from  the  twelfth 


256  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


century.  Kindred  undertakings  followed.  The  first 
highly  significant  version  was  that  of  Jacques  le  Fevre 
d’fitaples  (Jacob  Faber  Stapulensis),  a  professor  in  the 
Sorbonne,  Paris.  His  zeal  for  the  Bible  was  kindled  by 
his  acquaintance  with  Luther’s  work.  He  published  a 
translation  almost  simultaneously  with  Luther  (New 
Testament  1523-25,  Old  Testament  1530).  His  New 
Testament  translation  brought  about  his  expulsion  from 
his  professorship,  and  he  was  forced  to  flee  from  France. 
In  1546  an  edict  was  issued  against  him  and  his  work, 
in  which  among  other  things,  it  was  declared:  ‘Tt  is 
neither  expedient  nor  useful  for  the  Christian  public  that 
any  translation  of  the  Bible  should  be  permitted  to  be 
printed;  rather,  they  should  be  suppressed  as  injurious.” 
Those  who  possessed  a  copy  of  this  work  were  ordered 
to  deliver  it  up  within  eight  days. 

As  le  Fevre’s  version  was  based  upon  the  Vulgate  it 
has  no  such  significance  as  that  of  Luther.  It  did  not 
become  the  popular  Bible  of  the  French  people.  It  was 
a  version  that  satisfied  neither  the  Catholic  leaders  nor 
the  Protestants.  It  was  printed  chiefly  outside  of  France. 
Several  revisions  of  le  Fevre’s  work  were  made  for  the 
purpose  of  conforming  it  more  perfectly  to  the  Vulgate 
and  to  Roman  Catholic  ideas. 

A  better  version  in  every  way  was  that  of  the  brothers 
Antoine  and  Louis  de  Sacy  (1667  and  1668).  This 
again  was  based  upon  the  Vulgate,  and  it  enjoyed  the 
approval  of  Catholic  authorities.  A  new  translation  had 
become  indispensable  because  the  French  language  had 
undergone  great  changes;  but  apart  from  the  necessary 
modernization  of  the  language  this  was  doubtless  a  more 
correct  version  than  le  Fevre’s.  It  remains  the  most 
common  version  among  French  Catholics.  In  1877  a 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  257 


considerably  improved  Catholic  version  (by  the  Abbe 
Glaire)  was  published,  having  the  sanction  of  the  clerical 
authorities.  Like  all  other  official  versions  it  embodied 
notes  which  carefully  guarded  against  heretical  inter¬ 
pretations  of  the  Scriptures.  Again  in  1886  a  transla¬ 
tion  was  issued  v/ith  the  sanction  of  the  Archbishop  of 
Paris.  The  translator  was  Henri  Lassere.  The  work 
was  received  with  great  popular  approval,  but  suddenly — 
about  a  year  after  its  first  publication — the  ecclesiastical 
sanction  was  withdrawn.  The  book  was  placed  in  the 
Index  Expurgatorius. 

French  versions  of  the  Bible  are  notable  for  the  marked 
difference  between  the  Catholic  and  Protestant  renderings. 
Le  Fevre’s  work  was  done  by  a  man  who  was  half  re¬ 
former.  It  was  therefore  unacceptable  to  the  Romans, 
and  at  the  same  time,  scarcely  acceptable  to  the  Protes¬ 
tants.  In  1535  Olivetan  endeavored  to  supply  the  demand 
for  a  version  that  should  embody  the  new  evangelical 
ideas.  Taking  le  Fevre’s  work  as  a  basis,  but  with  the 
application  of  much  independent  research — especially  in 
the  Old  Testament, — he  produced  a  very  meritorious  ver«. 
sion  and  one  destined  to  play  a  most  important  part  in 
the  history  of  French  Protestantism.  In  Olivetan’s  own 
lifetime  many  revised  or  altered  editions  of  his  work  were 
put  forth,  some  of  them  by  other  hands  than  his  own. 
A  more  general  revision  of  the  Olivetan  Bible  by  Martin 
appeared  in  1696-1707,  and  this  revision  was  in  turn  it¬ 
self  more  than  once  revised — the  last  time  near  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  Another  revision  of  Olivetan 
was  made  by  Osterwald  in  1724  (an  improved  editioif 
1744).  This  has  enjoyed  even  more  favor  among  Prot¬ 
estants  than  that  of  Martin  and  was  itself  revised  in 
1868  and  1887. 


258  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


The  history  of  Bible  versions  in  other  non-English 
lands  merits  our  study,  but  for  our  present  purposes  it 
may  be  omitted. 

8.  William  Tindale.  Some  ten  or  fifteen  years  after 
the  death  of  Wicklif  there  was  born  in  the  city  of  Mainz 
(Mayence)  a  boy  destined  to  deathless  fame  as  the  in¬ 
ventor  (for  the  Western  world)  of  the  art  of  printing 
with  movable  type.  The  boy  was  Johann  Gensfleisch  by 
name.  The  name  Gensfleisch,  though  not  a  pleasing  one 
(in  English  it  would  be  '‘Gooseflesh”),  belonged  to  a 
family  of  excellent  repute.  Our  Johann,  however,  even¬ 
tually  exchanged  it  for  Gutenberg,  a  name  belonging  to 
a  certain  piece  of  property  that  had  been  acquired  by  his 
grandfather.  After  a  residence  of  some  duration  in 
Strassburg,  John  Gutenberg  returned  to  Mainz  in  1444, 
and  before  the  middle  of  the  century  he  set  up — in  part¬ 
nership  with  John  Fust — his  printing-press. 

It  is  the  time  of  the  Renaissance.  Already  in  Italy  the 
revival  of  ancient  lore  had  gone  on  apace;  in  other  coun¬ 
tries  of  Europe  it  was  spreading  rapidly.  The  fall  of 
Constantinople  in  1453  sent  many  Greeks  into  Italy. 
Some  of  these  brought  with  them  precious  manuscripts. 
It  was  an  interesting  coincidence  that  just  as  Constan¬ 
tinople  was  falling  to  the  Turks,  the  sheets  of  Cardinal 
Mazarin’s  Latin  Bible  were  issuing  from  Gutenberg’s 
press.  It  was  the  first  entire  book  to  be  printed  in  Europe. 
The  passion  for  learning  had  by  this  time  become  as  in¬ 
tense  in  the  countries  of  Northwestern  Europe  as  it  had 
been  in  Italy.  Men  of  a  degree  of  learning  everywhere 
were  impoverishing  themselves  by  the  purchase  of  Greek 
manuscripts.  “As  soon  as  I  get  money,”  wrote  young 
Erasmus,  “I  shall  buy  Greek  books ;  and  then  I  shall  buy 
some  clothes.”  The  new  learning  was  not  always  fostered 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  259 

or  approved  by  the  Church.  On  the  contrary,  the  Revival 
of  Learning  was  rightly  regarded  by  many  ecclesiastics 
as  signifying  a  tendency  to  break  away  from  the  Church’s 
authority.  The  clergy,  therefore,  warned  the  people 
against  the  new  learning.  As  late  as  1530  a  French  priest 
said  from  the  pulpit:  “They  have  found  out  a  new  lan¬ 
guage,  called  Greek;  we  must  carefully  guard  ourselves 
against  that  language.  It  will  be  the  mother  of  all  sorts 
of  heresies.  I  see  in  the  hands  of  many  people  a  book 
in  that  tongue  called  the  New  Testament.  It  is  a  book 
full  of  brambles,  with  vipers  in  them.”  But  fortunately 
there  were  many  zealous  Christians,  even  before  the 
Lutheran  Reformation,  who  thought  otherwise.  John 
Colet,  one  of  Oxford’s  greatest  lights,  returned  from 
travels  in  Italy  on  fire  with  zeal  for  Greek  learning.  But 
not  for  the  sake  of  mere  learning.  “The  knowledge  of 
Greek  seems  to  have  had  one  almost  exclusive  aim  for 
him.  .  .  .  Greek  was  the  key  by  which  he  could  unlock 
the  Gospels  and  the  New  Testament,  and  in  these  he 
thought  he  could  find  a  new  religious  standing-ground.” 
(Green,  A  Short  History  of  the  English  People.)  As 
Dean  of  St.  Paul’s  in  London,  Colet  delivered  famous 
lectures  on  some  of  Paul’s  Epistles  and  other  portions  of 
the  New  Testament.  He  died  in  1519. 

Six  years  before  the  close  of  the  15th  century  the 
Hebrew  Bible  was  printed  at  Brescia;  one  year  before 
Luther’s  Ninety-five  Theses  Erasmus  issued  his  Greek 
New  Testament.  Luther’s  translation,  as  we  have  noted, 
was  made  from  the  original  tongues;  the  same  is  true  of 
the  English  Bible  of  William  Tindale. 

William  Tindale  was  born  in  1484,  that  is,  a  year  after 
the  birth  of  Luther  and  just  one  hundred  years  after  the 
death  of  Wicklif  He  early  acquired  distinction  as  a 


teo  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


scholar  at  Oxford.  Later  he  went  to  Cambridge.  Here 
Erasmus  had  been  professor  for  a  time;  indeed,  it  is 
possible  that  Tindale’s  earliest  residence  in  Cambridge 
was  before  the  departure  of  Erasmus.  At  all  events 
Erasmus’  Greek  learning  had  inspired  Tindale;  especially 
the  Greek  New  Testament  (1516)  was  a  joy  to  him.  It 
was  about  this  time  that  the  thought  of  a  new  English 
version  of  the  Bible  began  to  stir  in  Tindale’s  mind. 
He  went  to  London  to  obtain  from  the  Bishop  of  that 
see  the  authority  to  make  the  translation  of  the  New 
Testament;  he  desired  also  the  Bishop’s  patronage  in 
the  undertaking.  He  brought  with  him  a  translation  of 
an  oration  of  Isocrates  as  proof  of  his  competency  for 
the  task.  The  Bishop  put  him  off,  but  he  did  not  forbid 
the  undertaking.  His  house,  he  said,  was  full,  and  he 
had  more  than  he  could  feed;  he  advised  Tindale  to  seek 
help  elsewhere  in  London.  And  there,  indeed,  he  did 
find  friends  and  helpers.  For  half  a  year  he  was  a  wel¬ 
come  guest  at  the  house  of  Humphrey  Monmouth,  a  rich 
cloth  merchant.  From  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  he 
received  not  the  least  encouragement.  Rather  he  was 
made  to  feel  that  he  should  meet  direct  opposition  from 
that  source.  Therefore  he  concluded  it  was  expedient 
to  go  abroad  in  order  to  finish  his  work.  His  purpose 
to  give  the  Bible  to  the  people  was  profound  and  im¬ 
movable.  Once,  in  disputing  with  an  ardent  supporter 
of  the  papacy  as  against  personal  liberty  in  religious 
matters,  he  had  declared :  ‘Tf  God  spare  my  life,  ere  many 
years  I  will  cause  a  boy  that  driveth  a  plough  shall  know 
more  of  the  Scripture  than  thou  dost.”  Already  for 
some  time  before  his  departure  from  London  he  had  been 
toiling  upon  his  translation.  In  May,  1524,  furnished 
with  means  by  “Humphrey  Monmouth  and  certain  other 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  261 


good  men,”  he  “took  his  leave  of  the  realm  and  departed 
into  Germanie.”  He  took  up  his  abode  in  Wittenberg, 
the  home  of  Luther,  the  seat  of  the  first  Protestant 
university  and  center  of  the  German  Reformation.  Here 
he  finished  his  translation  of  the  New  Testament. 

In  the  summer  of  1525  we  find  Tindale  and  his  amanu¬ 
ensis  in  Cologne,  supervising  a  quarto  edition  of  3,000 
copies  of  the  New  Testament.  In  the  midst  of  the  work 
a  spying  priest,  John  Cochlaeus  of  Frankfort,  discovered 
his  secret  and  betrayed  him.  Tindale  made  a  hasty 
escape,  bearing  with  him  the  sheets  already  printed,  and 
journeyed  by  boat  up  the  Rhine  to  Worms.  Here  a 
fresh  edition  was  set  up  and  printed — this  time  in  octavo; 
it  is  believed  that  the  quarto  edition  also  was  completed 
here.  The  two  editions  together  would  number  6,000 
copies.  These  were  ready  for  shipment  to  England  so 
soon  as  the  ice  upon  the  river  should  yield.  The  books 
had  to  be  smuggled  into  England  and  Scotland,  and  they 
were  eagerly  bought.  King  and  Cardinal  had  been  fore¬ 
warned,  and  great  efforts  were  put  forth  to  suppress  the 
edition.  And  indeed  they  were  able  to  gather  up  a  great 
number  of  copies  and  destroy  them.  But  in  Holland  and 
elsewhere  pirated  editions  appeared.  After  a  time,  of 
course,  the  early  opposition  to  the  giving  of  the  Bible  to 
the  people  was  removed,  for  in  the  years  1531-1534 
Henry  VIII.  effected  a  complete  breach  with  Rome. 
While  on  the  King’s  part  this  was  not  at  all  an  expression 
of  the  principles  of  the  Protestant  Reformation,  it  was 
natural  that  it  should  have  involved  a  policy  of  consider¬ 
able  toleration  for  all  the  anti-Romish  doctrines.  There 
was  a  powerful  movement  in  the  English  Church  toward 
a  genuinely  evangelical  reformation.  Just  as  soon,  then, 
as  the  allegiance  to  Rome  had  been  renounced,  there  came 


262  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


a  degree  of  favor  for  liberal  views.  In  the  meantime, 
however,  Tindale  suffered  the  bitterest  persecutions.  Af¬ 
ter  finishing  the  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
making  revisions  in  that  of  the  New,  he  was  arrested 
at  Antwerp  by  order  of  the  Spanish  Emperor,  Charles  the 
Fifth,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  was  lodged  in  the 
privileged  house  of  the  English  Merchant  Adventurers. 
After  an  imprisonment  of  about  a  year  and  a  half  in  the 
bastile  at  Vilvorde  he  was  brought  forth  on  October  6, 
1536,  and  burned  at  the  stake.  His  last  words — spoken 
in  a  loud  voice — were :  ^‘Lord,  open  the  King  of  England’s 
eyes.”  His  chief  helper,  the  charming,  blithe  and  youth¬ 
ful  Frith,  had  been  executed  in  England  three  years  be¬ 
fore  this  because  he  denied  the  Romish  doctrine  of  tran- 
substantiation. 

Tindale’s  sense  of  the  need  of  a  vernacular  version  of 
the  Bible  is  set  forth  in  his  Preface  to  Genesis:  ‘T  had 
perceaved  by  experyence,  how  that  it  was  impossible  to 
stablysh  the  laye  people  in  any  truth,  except  in  their  mother 
tonge,  that  they  might  se  the  processe,  ordre  and  meaninge 
of  the  texts.” 

His  purpose  in  translating  the  Scriptures  we  find  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  Prologue  to  the  New  Testament  (the 
Cologne — quarto — edition,  of  which  only  eight  sheets, 
less  the  title-page  leaf,  or  62  pages  have  survived  to  us)  : — 
^T  have  here  translated  (brethren  and  susters  moost  dere 
and  tenderly  beloued  in  Christ)  the  newe  Testament  for 
youre  spirituall  edyfyinge,  consolacion,  and  solas :  Exhor- 
tynge  instantly  and  besechynge  those  that  are  better  sene 
in  the  tonges  than  y,  and  that  have  hyer  giftes  of  grace 
to  interpret  the  sence  of  the  scripture  and  meanynge  of 
the  spyrite  then  y,  to  consydre  and  pondre  my  labour, 
and  that  with  the  spyrite  of  mekenes.  And  yf  they  per- 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  268 


ceyve  in  eny  places  that  y  have  not  attayned  the  very 
sence  of  the  tonge,  or  meanynge  of  the  scripture,  or  haue 
not  geven  the  right  englysshe  worde,  that  they  put  to  there 
handes  to  amende  it,  remembrynge  that  so  is  there  duetie 
to  doo.  For  we  have  not  receyved  the  gyftes  of  god  for 
cure  selues  only,  or  for  to  hyde  them ;  but  for  to  best  owe 
them  unto  the  honour inge  of  god  and  christ,  and  edy- 
fyinge  of  the  congregacion,  which  is  the  body  of  christ.” 

Tindale  translated  in  addition  to  the  whole  of  the  New 
Testament,  ‘'the  v  bookes  of  Moses,  Josua,  Judicum,  Ruth, 
the  bookes  of  the  Kynges  and  the  books  of  the  Parali-' 
pomenon,  Nehemias  or  the  fyrste  of  Esdras,  the  Prophet 
Jonas,  and  no  more  of  the  holy  scripture.”  Information 
as  to  who  rendered  help  in  the  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  very  incomplete.  It  is  probable  that  the 
work  on  the  Old  Testament  is  less  independent  of  the 
Vulgate  and  of  Luther’s  version  than  is  the  case  with  the 
New  Testament;  and  yet  even  for  the  Old  Testament  the 
original  language  was  the  basis  of  the  translation. 

Tindale  was  not  an  imposing  personality  like  Wicklif 
and  Luther,  and  yet  he  showed  a  constancy  and  fortitude 
that  were  beyond  all  praise.  He  possessed  rare  gifts  for 
the  work  of  a  translator  of  the  Scriptures.  Much  of  the 
work  of  translation  had  to  be  carried  on  in  places  where 
he  had  not  access  to  the  versions  of  his  predecessors  on 
English  soil.  His  dependence  upon  Wicklif  was  not  so 
great  as  one  might  have  expected ;  such  as  it  was,  it  was 
largely  due  to  the  faithful  impressions  of  his  memory. 
His  skill  in  handling  the  treasures  of  the  English  language 
and  to  develop  its  latent  powers  was  altogether  remarkable. 
In  view  of  the  influence  of  his  version  upon  all  later 
attempts  to  render  the  Bible  into  English,  Tindale  has 
been  called  “the  father  of  the  English  Bible  as  we  now 


264  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


have  it”  So  compelling  has  been  this  influence  that  even 
in  the  Revised  Version  of  1881  and  1885  as  many  as  80 
per  cent  of  the  words  stand  as  Tindale  fixed  them. 

The  octavo  edition  of  Tindale’s  New  Testament  con¬ 
tained,  in  addition  to  a  long  prologue,  ninety-one  marginal 
notes,  of  which  the  larger  half  were  borrowed  from 
Luther’s  New  Testament  and  the  rest  were  Tindale’s 
own.  He  affixed  notes  also  to  the  version  of  the  Old 
Testament.  A  few  examples  of  his  notes  will  be  of 
interest  on  all  accounts  and  in  particular  will  largely 
explain  the  animosity  that  was  stirred  up  against  their 
author.  On  Genesis  24:60  (“They  blessed  Rebekah”)  : 
“To  bless  a  man’s  neighbour  is  to  pray  for  him  and  to 
wish  him  good,  and  not  to  wag  two  fingers  over  him.” 
On  Exodus  32  :  35  (“And  the  Lord  plagued  the  people”)  : 
“The  Pope’s  bull  slayeth  more  than  Aaron’s  calf.”  On 
Numbers  23:8  (“How  shall  I  curse  whom  God  curseth 
not?”)  :  “The  Pope  can  tell  how.” 

It  will  be  profitable  to  compare  the  following  specimen 
of  Tindale’s  version  with  Wicklif’s  on  the  one  hand  and 
with  the  King  James  version  on  the  other.  The  passage 
is  Mark  4 :  1-9. 

“And  he  began  agayne  to  teache  them  by  the  see  syde; 
and  there  gadered  to  gedder  unto  hym  moche  people,  so 
greatly  that  he  entered  into  a  shippe,  and  sate  in  the  see, 
and  all  the  people  was  by  the  see  syde,  on  the  shoore. 
And  he  taught  them  many  thynges  in  similitudes.  And 
sayde  unto  them  in  his  doctrine,  Herken  to.  Beholde! 
the  sower  went  forth  to  sowe.  And  it  fortuned  as  he 
sowed,  that  some  fell  by  the  waye  syde,  and  the  fowles  of 
the  ayre  cam,  and  devoured  it  uppe.  Some  fell  on  a  stony 
grounde,  where  it  had  not  moche  erth;  and  by  and  by 
sprange  uppe,  because  it  had  not  deepth  of  erth.  And 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  265 


as  sone  as  the  sun  was  uppe,  it  caught  heet,  and  because 
it  had  nott  rotynge,  it  wyddred  awaye.  And  some  fell 
amonge  the  thornes,  and  the  thornes  grewe  uppe,  and 
choked  it,  so  that  it  gave  no  frute.  And  some  fell  apon 
good  grounde,  and  did  yield  frute,  that  spronge,  and 
grewe ;  and  brought  forthe  some  thirty  folde,  some  fourty 
folde,  and  some  an  hundred  folde.  And  he  sayde  unto 
them.  He  that  hath  eares  to  heare,  lett  him  heare.” 

9.  Miles  Cover  dale.  We  have  seen  William  Tindale 
seized  at  Antwerp  in  the  midst  of  his  strenuous  labors  to 
bring  his  version  of  the  Old  Testament  to  a  conclusion. 
He  was  not  permitted  to  achieve  the  longed-for  consum¬ 
mation.  But  it  is  significant  that  in  the  year  of  his  im¬ 
prisonment  (1535)  another  Englishman  was  publishing 
a  complete  Bible  in  the  language  of  the  people.  This  was 
Miles  Coverdale,  and  his  translation  was  the  first  com¬ 
plete  Bible  in  the  English  tongue. 

The  fierce  opposition  of  the  Bishops  to  Tindale’s  version 
was  due,  as  we  have  seen,  not  so  much  to  any  funda¬ 
mental  objection  to  giving  the  Bible  to  the  people  as  to 
the  feeling  that  the  translator  was  a  heretic  and  his  ver¬ 
sion  ministered  to  heresy.  Tindale  was  known  to  be  in 
sympathy  with  Luther,  and  King  Henry  hated  Luther 
and  all  his  works.  But  the  King  did  not  deny  the  lawful¬ 
ness  or  even  desirability  of  a  version  of  the  Bible  for  the 
people,  if  it  might  be  a  translation  duly  supervised  and 
sanctioned  by  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  and  by  his 
royal  self.  In  1530  he  joined  with  a  prohibition  of 
Tindale’s  New  Testament  a  promise  of  a  properly  accred¬ 
ited  version.  On  December  18,  1534,  the  upper  house  of 
the  Convocation  of  the  province  of  Canterbury,  consisting 
of  the  Bishops,  Abbots  and  Priors,  petitioned  the  King  to 
sanction  the  preparation  of  such  a  version,  setting  forth 


266  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

that  there  was  need  of  such  a  version  and  praying  that 
“the  king’s  majesty  should  think  fit  to  decree  that  the 
holy  scripture  shall  be  translated  into  the  vulgar  English 
tongue  by  certain  upright  and  learned  men  to  be  named 
by  the  said  most  illustrious  king  and  be  meted  out  and 
delivered  to  the  people  for  their  instruction.”  In  all  this, 
of  course,  there  is  no  reference  to  Miles  Coverdale,  yet 
it  is  clear  from  other  testimony  that  Coverdale  had  already 
for  some  years  been  at  work  on  a  translation  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  that  he  had  the  encouragement  and  in¬ 
formal  sanction  of  the  Bishops  for  his  undertaking. 
When  therefore  in  the  course  of  the  following  year  he 
was  ready  with  his  translation,  his  work  received  the 
formal  sanction  of  King  and  Bishops.  His  Bible  must 
have  been  in  press — probably  at  Zurich — at  the  very 
moment  that  Convocation  put  forth  its  petition  to  the 
King.  The  Coverdale  Bible  was  published  in  October, 
1535,  and  dedicated  to  “the  most  victorious  Prynce  and 
oure  most  gracyous  soueraigne  Lorde,  Kynge  Henry  the 
eyght.”  In  1537  it  was  reprinted  in  England  in  folio  and 
in  quarto;  one  of  these  was  the  first  Bible  ever  printed 
on  English  soil. 

Coverdale,  unlike  Tindale,  was  a  man  of  quiet  spirit 
and  altogether  disinclined  to  controversy.  He  had,  it 
would  seem,  less  scholarship  than  Tindale,  also  less  orig¬ 
inality  and  vigor  of  expression;  but  he  had  a  very  fine 
literary  instinct  and  admirable  taste.  It  is  especially 
worthy  of  note  as  a  proof  of  the  latter  statement,  that 
it  is  Coverdale’s  beautiful  version  of  the  Psalter  that 
still  holds  its  place  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  the 
Church  of  England. 

On  the  title-page  of  the  first  edition  of  Coverdale’s 
Bible  it  is  stated  that  it  was  translated  “out  of  the  Douche 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  267 

and  Lat}Ti/’  that  is,  probably,  the  German  of  Luther, 
the  Swiss-German  of  Zwingli,  the  Latin  of  the  Vulgate 
and  of  Pagninus.  In  the  dedication  to  the  King,  Cover- 
dale  says :  “I  have  nether  wrested  nor  altered  so  moch 
as  one  worde  for  the  mayntenaunce  of  any  manner  of 
secte;  but  have  with  a  clear  conscience  purely  and  fayth- 
fully  translated  this  out  of  f)we  sundry*  interpreters,  hav- 
yng  onely  the  manyfest  truth  of  the  scripture  before 
myne  eyes.”  As  Coverdale  here  mentions  no  names,  we 
cannot  know  with  certainty  who  “the  f>we  sundry  inter¬ 
preters”  (translators)  were.  It  is  his  title-page  that 
mentions  the  “Douche  and  Latyn.”  It  is,  however,  mani¬ 
fest  that  besides  German  and  Latin  versions  he  made 
much  use  of  Tindale’s  translation,  in  so  far  as  that  had 
appeared.  His  dependence  upon  Tindale  is  especially 
marked  in  the  New  Testament;  so  great,  indeed,  that 
some  have  called  the  Coverdale  Bible  a  revised  Tindale. 
Nevertheless,  Coverdale’s  work  was  of  really  great  im¬ 
portance.  If  he  had  less  originality  and  vigor  than  Tin- 
dale,  he  had  more  grace  and  good  taste. 

As  far  back  as  1531  Tindale  made,  by  the  hand  of  a 
friend,  the  following  communication  to  the  King:  “I 
assure  youe,  sayde  he  (Tindale),  if  it  wolde  stande  withe 
the  kinges  most  gracious  pleasure  to  graunte  only  a  bare 
text  of  the  scriptures  to  be  put  forthe  emonge  his  people, 
like  as  is  put  forthe  emonge  the  subgectes  of  the  emperour 
in  these  parties,  and  of  other  cristen  princes,  be  it  of  the 
translation  of  what  person  soever  shall  please  his  magestie, 
I  shall  ymedyatly  make  faithful  promise,  never  to  wryte 
more,  ne  abide  ij  dayes  in  these  parties  after  the  same, 
but  ymedyatly  to  repayre  into  his  realme,  and  there  most 
humbly  submytt  my  selfe  at  the  fete  of  his  royall  mag¬ 
estie,  offerynge  my  bodye,  to  suffer  what  payne  or  tor- 


268  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


ture,  ye  what  dethe  his  grace  will,  so  this  be  obteyned.” 
Of  course  the  King’s  general  attitude  precluded  an  accept¬ 
ance  of  the  offer  of  one  whom  he  regarded  as  a  heretic. 
But  it  must  not  be  inferred  that  Cover  dale,  though  he 
enjoyed  the  favor  of  Bishops  and  King,  put  himself  for¬ 
ward  as  an  opponent  of  Tindale.  Indeed,  a  positive 
appreciation  of  Tindale’s  work  is  manifest  in  the  “Pro¬ 
logue  Myles  Coverdale  Unto  the  Christen  reader”  : — 

“Considerynge  how  excellent  knowledge  and  lernynge 
an  interpreter  of  scripture  oughte  to  have  in  the  tongues, 
and  ponderynge  also  myne  owne  insufficiency  therein, 
and  how  weake  I  am  to  per  four  me  the  office  of  transla- 
toure,  I  was  the  more  lothe  to  meddle  with  this  worke. 
Notwithstondynge  when  I  consydered  how  greate  pytie  it 
was  that  we  shulde  wante  it  so  longe,  and  called  to  my 
remembraunce  the  adversite  of  them,  which  were  not  onely 
of  rype  knowledge,  but  wolde  also  with  all  theyr  hertes 
have  perfourmed  that  they  beganne,  yf  they  had  not  had 
impediment:  considerynge  (I  saye)  that  by  reason  of 
theyr  adversyte  it  coulde  not  so  soone  have  bene  broughte 
to  an  ende,  as  oure  most  prosperous  nacyon  wolde  fayne 
have  had  it :  these  and  other  reasonable  causes  consydered, 
I  was  the  more  bolde  to  take  it  in  hande.” 

10.  Matthew's  Bible  and  Its  Revision  by  Taverner. 
The  next  English  Bible  is  known  as  Matthew’s  Bible. 
It  was  printed  we  do  not  know  where — probably  at 
Antwerp — in  1537  by  the  same  man  that  printed  Tin- 
dale’s  revised  New  Testament  in  1534.  Two  English 
printers  superintended  the  printing.  The  work  was  not 
really  a  new  translation,  npr  was  the  editor  Thomas  Mat¬ 
thew,  this  name  being  but  a  pseudonym  of  the  real  editor, 
John  Rogers,  a  friend  of  Tindale’s.  As  Tindale’s  version 
had  been  condemned  and  as  Coverdale’s  could  not  be  re- 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  269 


garded  as  the  special  translation  called  for  by  Convoca¬ 
tion  in  1534,  even  though  it  circulated  with  royal  sanction, 
there  seemed  to  be  room  for  another  aspirant  for  the 
favor  of  both  king  and  people.  It  was,  however,  no 
really  new  version  that  was  offered,  but  only  a  revision 
of  the  versions.  For  reasons  of  policy  these  names  were 
suppressed;  and,  as  we  have  seen,  even  the  name  of  the 
real  editor  (Rogers)  does  not  appear.  Cranmer,  the  Arch¬ 
bishop,  took  an  interest  in  this  new  venture,  and  wrote  to 
the  Prime  Minister  of  King  Henry,  asking  him  to  obtain 
from  His  Majesty  license  for  the  free  circulation  of  this 
book  ‘‘untill  such  tyme  that  we,  the  Bishops,  shall  set  forth 
a  better  translation,  which  I  think  will  not  be  till  a  day 
after  domesday.’'  The  title-page  of  Matthew’s  Bible 
bears  the  words :  “Set  forth  with  the  Kinge’s  most 
gracyous  lycense.”  Rogers’  work  of  editing  was  judi¬ 
ciously  done.  There  are  marginal  notes,  as  in  Tindale’s 
Bible,  but  they  are  more  moderate  than  Tindale’s.  The 
first  edition  of  the  Matthew  Bible  numbered  1,500  copies. 

In  1539  appeared  Taverner's  Bible.  It  was  a  revision 
of  the  Matthew  Bible,  with  a  few  real  improvements,  and 
a  further  abating  of  the  offensiveness  of  the  notes  as 
found  in  Tindale  and  in  the  Matthew  Bible. 

11.  ''The  Great  Bible."  But  the  year  1539  is  signal¬ 
ized  by  a  still  more  important  event  in  the  history  of  the 
English  Bible.  This  was  the  publication  of  what  is 
known  as  “The  Great  Bible’’  (sometimes  also  called 
“Cranmer’s  Bible”  or  “Cromwell’s  Bible”).  For  various 
reasons  it  was  the  judgment  of  the  Bishops  that  a  better 
translation  and  withal  a  better  imprint  of  the  Bible  should 
be  procured  than  any  that  had  yet  appeared.  Coverdale 
was  appointed  to  be  the  “Corrector”  of  this  new  Bible. 
He  went  to  Paris  with  the  King’s  printer,  because  there 


270  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

the  facilities  for  printing  were  better  than  in  England. 
Various  events,  however,  threatened  to  bring  the  whole 
project  to  nought.  While  the  edition  was  passing  through 
the  press  the  Inquisitor  General  suddenly  stopped  the 
work  and  undertook  to  destroy  the  sheets  already  printed. 
But  fortunately  the  printed  sheets  (at  least  a  part  of 
them),  the  type  and  the  presses  were  rescued  and  taken 
to  England,  with  the  printers  themselves ;  there  the  edition 
was  completed.  It  made  a  rather  superb  book.  The 
title-page  is  a  fine  and  elaborate  engraving  ascribed  to 
Holbein.  This  engraving  represents  the  Lord  in  the 
clouds  of  heaven  sending  forth  his  Word;  the  King 
kneeling  to  receive  it ;  then  the  King  on  his  throne  deliver¬ 
ing  it  to  the  clergy  and  laity,  Cranmer  and  Cromwell  dis¬ 
tributing  it;  the  preacher  expounding  it  in  the  open  air; 
and  lastly  the  people  with  their  shouting  of  “God  save  the 
King!” 

The  Great  Bible  was,  by  the  order  of  the  King,  dis¬ 
tributed  to  all  the  churches  of  the  land,  where  it  should 
be  for  the  free  use  of  the  parishioners.  Severe  penalties 
were  enacted  for  any  church  neglecting  to  provide  itself 
with  a  copy.  It  was  the  first  fully  “authorized”  Bible  in 
England.  And  undoubtedly  it  was  the  best  version  that 
had  yet  appeared  in  England.  A  space  of  one  hundred 
and  eleven  years  had  intervened  since  the  ashes  of  Wicklif 
had  been  cast  into  the  brook  at  Lutterworth,  and  now 
the  open  Bible  is  set  up  in  every  church  in  the  King’s 
realm,  the  visible  acknowledgment  of  the  supremacy  of 
the  Word  of  God. 

Edition  after  edition  of  the  Great  Bible  was  printed. 
Of  the  first  edition  the  copy  owned  by  Thomas  Cromwell, 
printed  on  vellum,  is  preserved  in  the  Cambridge  Univer¬ 
sity  Library.  A  still  more  superb  copy  of  the  second 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  271 


edition  is  to  be  seen  in  the  British  Museum;  it  was  a 
presentation  copy  for  King  Henry  himself. 

The  Great  Bible  was  no  new  version,  only  a  correction 
or  revision  of  the  previous  versions.  It  was,  indeed, 
chiefly  the  work  of  the  heretic  and  martyr  Tindale.  On 
the  title-page  of  the  fourth  edition  (1540)  it  is  stated 
that  the  text  has  been  “overseen  and  perused  at  the  com¬ 
mandment  of  the  King’s  Highness  by  the  ryghte  reverende 
fathers  in  God,  Cuthbert  bishop  of  Duresme  (Durham) 
and  Nicholas  bishop  of  Rochester.”  Now  the  Bishop  of 
Durham  was  no  other  than  Cuthbert  Tonstal,  who  could 
find  no  room  in  his  palace  in  London  for  Tindale’s  labors, 
and  who  afterwards  did  all  in  his  power  to  destroy  his 
New  Testament,  even  himself  hurling  into  the  flames 
from  the  pulpit  of  Paul’s  Cross  the  translation  which  (in 
substance)  now  goes  forth  with  his  own  sanction  on  the 
title-page.  Such  are  time’s  revenges! 

The  extraordinary  significance  of  the  Great  Bible  does 
not  lie  in  the  skill  of  the  correctors.  Not  all  the  changes 
from  the  renderings  of  Tindale  and  Coverdale  were  happy. 
This  Bible  is  so  important  for  two  causes :  the  lesser  is 
the  beauty  of  the  typography;  the  greater  is  the  royal 
decree  giving  it  the  widest  circulation  possible. 

One  must  not  suppose  that  Henry  the  Eighth  was  in 
any  sense  a  Protestant.  Except  for  his  repudiation  of 
papal  claims  in  England  he  remained  orthodox  to  the  last. 
He  was  “as  prompt  to  burn  a  Protestant  for  the  denial 
of  transubstantiation  as  he  was  to  behead  a  Catholic  for 
impugning  his  supremacy.”  And  so  it  came  about  that 
the  freedom  in  the  use  of  the  Bible  that  was  granted  at 
the  time  of  the  publication  of  the  Great  Bible  was  after¬ 
wards  curtailed.  In  1543  the  use  of  the  Bible  was  re¬ 
stricted  to  noblemen  and  their  wives,  and  merchants: 


272  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


*‘no  ordinary  woman,  tradesman,  apprentice,  or  husband¬ 
man”  was  allowed  to  possess  it.  In  addition  to  the  pro¬ 
scription  of  Tindale’s  version  it  was  ordered  that  the 
notes  in  all  others  must  be  expunged.  At  the  same  time 
Henry  caused  the  devastation  of  the  monastic  houses  in 
England  and  the  confiscation  of  their  lands,  all  simply 
as  a  blow  against  Rome.  As  far  as  was  possible,  he  was 
contending  against  both  the  Papacy  and  Protestantism. 

Henry  died  on  January  27,  1547.  He  was  succeeded 
by  Edward  VI.,  the  Boy-King.  Now  Edward  was  an 
adherent  of  the  Reformed  doctrine.  Under  his  reign  the 
breach  with  Rome  was  carried  out  in  dogma  as  well  as 
in  dominion.  One  of  his  earliest  acts  was  the  injunc¬ 
tion  requiring  the  Great  Bible  to  be  placed  in  every  parish 
church  in  the  land  within  three  months  and  that  everyone 
should  be  exhorted  by  the  clergy  to  read  it.  His  first 
Parliament  set  in  motion  important  reforms.  Among 
these  was  the  displacement  of  the  Latin  by  the  English 
liturgy  in  public  worship.  Liberty  was  granted  even  to 
reprint  Tindale’s  New  Testament — two  editions  of  it 
appeared  in  1548. 

We  may  swiftly  pass  by  the  few  years  of  the  reign  of 
Queen  Mary,  with  its  fearful  persecution  of  the  Protes¬ 
tants.  The  Catholic  reaction  was  as  sweeping  as  royal 
authority  and  fanatical  zeal  could  make  it.  Of  course 
in  Mary’s  time  the  publication  of  the  Bible  ceased  in 
England.  But  the  English  Protestant  refugees  in  Geneva 
began  the  version  which  next  demands  our  attention. 
There  were  also  in  the  years  of  Protestant  domination  in 
England,  Catholic  refugees  in  Rheims,  Douay,  and  Rouen, 
and  in  Catholic  times  Protestant  refugees  in  Antwerp, 
Amsterdam  and  Geneva.  All  of  these  places  are  asso- 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  273 


dated  more  or  less  intimately  with  the  history  of  our 
English  Bible. 

12.  The  Geneva  Bible  dates  from  the  year  1560.  But 
already  in  1557  Whittingham  has  issued  in  Geneva  his 
New  Testament;  it  is  noteworthy  as  the  first  English 
New  Testament  that  adopted  the  division  of  the  text  into 
verses  (according  to  the  example  of  Stephens’  Greek  New 
Testament  of  1551).  It  is  not  a  new  version,  only  a 
careful  revision  of  Tindale’s  with  the  aid  of  other  versions 
and  the  Greek  text.  The  whole  Bible  was  issued  in  1560, 
revised  in  the  same  way,  from  previous  versions  and 
reference  to  the  Hebrew  text.  Whittingham  and  several 
helpers  are  the  men  responsible  for  this  version.  Among 
these  helpers  may  have  been  John  Knox  and  Cover  dale — 
it  is  uncertain.  The  Geneva  Bible  was  a  really  improved 
version,  printed  in  convenient  form,  in  Roman  type.  Be¬ 
sides,  it  contained  “most  profitable  annotations  upon  all 
the  hard  places,  and  other  things  of  great  importance.” 
As  Protestantism  in  1559  was  restored  to  the  ascendancy 
in  England  upon  the  accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  there 
were  henceforth  no  barriers  to  the  free  circulation  of  the 
Scriptures  in  England.  The  Genevan  Bible  became  im¬ 
mensely  popular.  Between  1560  and  1644  it  was  re¬ 
printed  in  at  least  140  editions,  comprising  either  the 
whole  Bible  or  the  New  Testament  alone.  These  reprints, 
of  course,  were  made  chiefly  in  England  and  Scotland 
rather  than  on  the  Continent. 

13.  In  respect  of  scholarship  and  literary  skill  the 
Genevan  Bible  represents  a  distinct  improvement  upon  all 
its  predecessors  in  the  English  tongue.  But  for  an  ob¬ 
vious  reason  it  did  not  satisfy  the  Bishops  or  what  we 
now  should  call  the  High  Church  party;  for  the  mar¬ 
ginal  notes,  though  in  general  both  clear  and  scholarly, 


274  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


often  showed  a  strong  Calvinistic  or  Puritan  tendency. 
This  led  to  the  publication,  in  1568,  of  the  Bishops'  Bible. 
Archbishop  Parker  was  the  chief  promoter  of  this  revi¬ 
sion,  and  it  was  put  forth  as  a  fulfillment  of  the  purpose, 
announced  more  than  thirty  years  earlier,  to  issue  a  Bible 
prepared  under  the  direct  supervision  of  the  Bishops. 
Here  and  there  this  revision  shows  admirable  judgment 
and  good  scholarship,  but  it  is  on  the  whole  inferior  to 
the  Genevan  Bible.  It  was  for  the  most  part  merely 
a  revision  of  the  Great  Bible.  Its  place  in  the  history 
of  the  English  Bible  is  relatively  unimportant. 

14.  Rheims-Douay  Bible.  The  next  venture  in  the 
field  of  English  Bible  translation  is  the  Catholic  version 
known  as  the  Rheims-Douay  Bible  (1582-1609).  In 
1582  at  Rheims  some  members  of  the  English  Catholic 
colony  at  that  place  supervised  the  publication  of  a  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  New  Testament,  made  “out  of  the  Authen- 
tical  Latin,  according  to  the  best  corrected  copies  of  the 
same ;  diligently  conferred  with  Greeke  and  other  Editions 
in  divers  language” ;  .  .  .  “In  the  English  College  of 

Rhemes.”  The  leader  in  this  enterprise  was  Cardinal 
Allen,  who,  in  a  letter  of  the  year  1578,  had  bitterly  com¬ 
plained  because  the  Protestants  had  such  advantage  from 
possessing  their  various  versions  of  the  Bible.  “Our  ad¬ 
versaries  .  .  .  have  on  their  fingers'  ends  all  those 
passages  of  scripture  which  seem  to  make  for  them,  and 
by  a  certain  deceptive  adaptation  and  alteration  of  the 
sacred  words,  produce  the  effect  of  appearing  to  say 
nothing  but  what  comes  from  the  Bible.  This  evil  might 
be  remedied  if  we  too  had  some  Catholic  version  of  the 
Bible,  for  all  the  English  versions  are  most  corrupt.” 
The  Rheims  New  Testament  was  the  work  of  Gregory 
Martin,  an  Oxford  man,  who  in  1578  and  thereafter  was 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  275 


a  lecturer  on  the  Holy  Scripture  at  the  Catholic  College 
at  Rheims.  A  preface  to  the  reader  explains  the  reasons 
for  the  version,  especially  for  basing  it  upon  the  Vulgate. 
The  Old  Testament  (or  rather  the  complete  Bible)  was 
issued  at  Douay  in  1609.  The  College  had  its  seat  now 
at  one,  now  at  another,  of  the  two  places  named  (Rheims 
and  Douay)  ;  the  issue  of  the  Bible  in  1609  was  from 
Douay;  hence  the  authorized  Catholic  English  Bible  is 
commonly  known  as  the  Douay  version. 

The  work  in  this  version  is  in  some  respects  excellent, 
and  it  had  more  influence  upon  the  King  James  version 
of  1611  than  has  generally  been  recognized.  On  the 
whole,  however,  it  is  not  to  be  named  in  comparison 
with  the  latter.  A  certain  peculiarity  of  the  Catholic 
version  is  the  use  of  many  words  of  Latin  origin  from 
the  Vulgate. 

After  the  manner  of  other  versions  of  the  period,  the 
Rheims  New  Testament  contained  a  good  many  polemical 
notes.  In  the  more  modern  editions  of  the  book  these 
notes  have  given  place  to  others,  which,  while  no  less 
positively  Roman  Catholic  in  contents,  are  quite  inoffen¬ 
sive  in  form.  The  history  of  the  Rheims-Douay  Bible 
and  an  exposition  of  its  contribution  to  the  evolution  of 
the  English  Bible  are  well  set  forth  in  Dr.  J.  G.  Carleton’s 
book,  “The  Part  of  Rheims  in  the  Making  of  the  English 
Bible.”  As  to  the  general  value  of  the  work  the  estimate 
of  Dr.  W.  F.  Moulton  (“The  History  of  the  English 
Bible,”  3  ed.  1887)  may  safely  be  accepted:  “Nothing  is 
easier  than  to  accumulate  instances  of  the  eccentricity  of 
this  version,  of  its  obscure  and  inflated  renderings;  but 
only  minute  study  can  do  justice  to  its  faithfulness,  and  to 
the  care  with  which  the  translators  executed  their  work. 
Every  other  English  version  is  to  be  preferred  to  this,  if 


276  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


it  must  be  taken  as  a  whole ;  no  other  English  version  will 
prove  more  instructive  to  the  student  who  will  take  the 
pains  to  separate  what  is  good  and  useful  from  what  is  ill- 
advised  and  wrong/ ^  In  translating  the  New  Testament, 
Martin  made  free  use  of  what  he  held  to  be  good  in  the 
abhorred  “most  corrupt’^  Protestant  versions,  especially 
the  Genevan  and  the  Bishops’  Bible;  but  then  in  turn  the 
King  James  revisers  freely  availed  themselves  of  what¬ 
ever  they  deemed  excellent  in  his  work.  The  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  in  the  Catholic  version  appeared  too  late  to  be  of  use 
to  them. 

15.  We  come  now  to  the  most  important  of  all  English 
versions  of  the  Bible — the  King  James  version,  A.  D. 
1611.  This  is  commonly  known  as  the  Authorized 
Version. 

When  James  V.  of  Scotland  was  on  his  way  from 
Edinburgh  to  London  to  take  the  crown  of  a  united 
kingdom  as  “James  I,  King  of  Great  Britain,  France  and 
Ireland,”  there  was  presented  to  him  what  is  known  as 
the  “Millenary  Petition.”  This  was  an  appeal  of  almost 
a  thousand  Puritan  clergy  for  the  removal  of  grievances 
and  relief  from  “the  burden  of  human  rites  and  cere¬ 
monies”  which  had  been  imposed  upon  them  in  the  Church 
of  England.  The  King,  who,  though  the  son  of  Queen 
Mary,  was  a  decided  Protestant  yet  no  Puritan,  promised 
to  look  into  these  matters.  It  was  1603  that  he  ascended 
the  English  throne,  and  as  early  as  January,  1604,  there 
met  at  Hampton  Court  a  Conference  called  by  the  King 
for  the  consideration  of  the  matters  of  controversy.  The 
hierarchy  was  represented  by  Whitgift,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  eight  bishops,  five  deans  and  two  doctors. 
Four  divines,  the  chief  man  among  them  being  Dr.  Rey¬ 
nolds,  President  of  Corpus  Christi  College,  Oxford,  rep- 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  A^'TER  277 

resented  the  Puritans.  To  give  an  account  of  the  course 
and  result  of  the  discussions  of  this  Conference  is  hardly 
within  the  scope  of  our  present  inquiry.  Let  it  suffice 
to  say  that  the  Puritan  demands,  which  were  very  far- 
reaching,  were  for  the  most  part  denied ;  only  a  few  minor 
concessions  were  made.  Indeed,  a  policy  of  rigid  enforce¬ 
ment  of  conformity  was  adopted,  with  the  result  that 
many  of  the  Puritans  were  driven  to  Holland  and  to 
America.  But  there  was  made  at  this  Conference  one 
proposal  that  issued  in  immense  blessing.  It  was  the 
proposal  to  provide  for  a  new  translation  of  the  Bible. 

When  the  proposal  was  first  put  forward  it  met  with 
no  favor  in  the  Bishops’  party,  perhaps  because  it  came 
from  the  leader  of  the  Puritan  party.  Dr.  Reynolds.  The 
feeling  of  the  dominant  party  seems  to  have  been  ex¬ 
pressed  by  Bancroft,  Bishop  of  London,  who  declared 
that  “if  every  man  had  his  humor  about  new  versions, 
there  would  be  no  end  of  translating.”  But  here  the 
Bishops’  party  “reckoned  without  their  host.”  The  King, 
who  in  all  other  matters  was  in  hearty  accord  with  the 
hierarchy,  immediately  showed  a  lively  interest  in  the  idea 
of  a  new  version.  What  his  reasons  or  motives  may 
have  been  it  is  not  so  easy  to  say.  Doubtless  his  zeal 
for  learning  and  literature  furnished  the  best  part  of  the 
motive;  but  he  was  doubtless  moved  also  by  his  dislike 
of  the  Genevan  Bible.  In  sanctioning  a  new  translation 
James  (who  held  most  zealously  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
divine  right  of  Kings)  “gave  this  caveat  .  .  .  that  no 
marginal  notes  should  be  added,  having  found  in  them 
which  are  annexed  to  the  Geneva  translation  (which  he 
sawe  in  a  Bible  given  him  by  an  English  Lady),  some 
notes  very  partiall,  untrue,  seditious,  and  savoring  too 
much  of  daungerous  and  trayterous  conceites.  As  for 


278  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


example  Exod.  1:19  where  the  margin  note  alloweth 
disobedience  to  Kings.  And  2  Chron.  15:  16,  the  note 
taxeth  Asa  for  deposing  his  mother  onely,  and  not  killing 
her.”  In  the  first  of  these  passages  the  text  says  that 
the  Hebrew  midwives  “did  not  as  the  king  of  Egypt 
commanded,  but  saved  the  men-children  alive”  and  the 
marginal  note  declares  “their  disobedience  to  the  king 
was  lawful,  though  their  dissembling  was  evil.”  “It  is 
false,”  cried  the  King:  “to  disobey  a  king  is  not  lawful; 
such  traitorous  conceits  should  not  go  forth  among  the 
people.”  The  reference  to  Asa  and  his  mother  implied 
a  hearty  approval  of  the  fate  of  Queen  Mary,  the  mother 
of  James. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  vanities  and  weaknesses 
of  James,  he  showed  admirable  discretion  in  the  measures 
which  he  took  for  carrying  out  the  work  proposed.  Fifty- 
four  learned  men  v^ere  selected  without  regard  to  party. 
These  were  appointed  to  the  work  by  the  end  of  June, 
1604;  after  about  three  years — which  time  was  presu¬ 
mably  spent  in  private  preparation — the  task  was  formally 
begun.  A  complete  and  accurate  list  of  the  names  of  the 
translators  has  not  been  preserved;  the  most  trustworthy 
is  probably  that  given  by  Bishop  Burnet  in  his  “History 
of  the  Reformation  in  the  Church  of  England.”  Of  the 
original  fifty- four  translators  the  names  of  forty-seven 
seem  to  have  been  handed  down  with  sufficient  correct¬ 
ness.  Among  them  we  note  Launcelot  Andrewes  (after¬ 
wards  Bishop  of  Winchester  and  author  of  the  well- 
known  Manual  of  Devotions) ;  Miles  Smith  (afterwards 
Bishop  of  Gloucester) ;  Dr.  Reynolds,  the  Puritan;  John 
Boyes  (or  Bois),  a  famous  Hebrew  scholar;  and  George 
Abbot,  later  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

The  translators  were  divided  into  six  companies,  two 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  279 


sitting  at  Westminster  (London),  two  at  Oxford  and 
two  at  Cambridge.  A  portion  of  the  Bible  was  allotted 
to  each  group.  As  soon  as  the  translation  of  any  book 
was  finished,  it  was  sent  to  all  the  others  for  suggestions ; 
and  upon  the  completion  of  the  whole  Bible,  the  work 
passed  under  a  final  revision  at  the  hands  of  six  or  twelve 
of  the  leading  members  of  the  whole  company.  Certain 
important  “Rules  to  be  observed  in  the  translation  of  the 
Bible”  were  established.  They  were  fifteen  in  number; 
the  most  important  points  are  the  following :  The 
Bishops^  Bible  is  to  be  as  little  altered  as  the  truth  of  the 
original  will  permit;  but  other  versions  are  named  which 
might  be  followed  where  these  agree  better  with  the 
original  than  the  Bishops’  Bible,  namely,  Tindale’s,  Mat¬ 
thew’s,  Cover  dale’s,  Whitchurch’s  (the  Great  Bible),  and 
the  Geneva  Bible;  old  ecclesiastical  terms  are  not  to  be 
disturbed  (e.g.,  the  word  church  must  be  used  instead  of 
congregation)]  no  marginalia  references  to  other  pas-* 
sages;  scholars  and  divines  not  members  of  the  company 
are  invited  to  volunteer  suggestions. — It  is  to  be  observed 
that  the  list  of  versions  which  the  translators  might  con¬ 
sult  did  not  include  the  Rheims-Douay  Bible,  yet  this 
version  (as  has  already  been  pointed  out)  was  in  fact 
quite  influential  in  determining  the  new  version.  But  it 
is  certain  that  the  King  James  translators  availed  them¬ 
selves  freely  also  of  several  other  versions  not  named  in 
the  Rules. 

The  translators’  mode  of  working  is  described  by  John 
Selden  (the  famous  contemporary  lawyer)  in  his  Table 
Talk  as  follows :  “That  part  of  the  Bible  was  given  to 
him  who  was  most  excellent  in  such  a  tongue.  .  .  .  And 
then  they  met  together  and  one  read  the  translation,  the 
rest  holding  in  their  hands  some  Bible,  either  of  the 


280  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


learned  tongues  or  French,  Spanish,  Italian,  etc.  If  they 
found  any  fault,  they  spoke;  if  not,  he  read  on.”  The 
entire  work  occupied  but  two  years  and  nine  months  after 
the  regular  sittings  of  the  companies  began.  This  time  is 
relatively  exceedingly  brief :  the  Anglo-American  revision 
represents  ten  and  a  half  years  devoted  to  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  and  fourteen  years  to  the  Old. 

The  preface  of  this  version  (‘‘The  Translators  to  the 
Reader”)  is  of  much  interest.  Miles  Smith  is  reputed 
to  be  its  author.  In  it  the  ‘‘good  Christian  Reader”  is 
assured  that  the  translators  “never  thought  to  make  a  new 
translation,  nor  yet  to  make  of  a  bad  one  a  good  one,  but 
to  make  a  good  one  better,  or  out  of  many  good  ones,  one 
principall  good  one,  not  justly  to  be  excepted  against; 
that  hath  bene  our  indeavour,  that  our  marke.”  The 
writer  says  further :  “Neither  did  we  disdain  to  revise 
that  which  we  had  done,  and  to  bring  back  to  the  anvil 
that  which  we  had  hammered,  fearing  no  reproach  for 
slowness  nor  coveting  praise  for  expedition.” 

The  work  was  published  in  1611.  It  bears  on  its  face 
the  marks  of  its  varied  and  noble  ancestry;  for  (as  Eadie, 
“The  English  Bible,”  says)  “while  it  has  the  fulness  of 
the  Bishops’  without  its  frequent  literalisms  or  its  re¬ 
peated  supplements,  it  has  the  graceful  vigour  of  the 
Genevan,  the  quiet  grandeur  of  the  Great  Bible,  the  clear¬ 
ness  of  Tindale,  the  harmonies  of  Coverdale,  and  the 
stately  theological  vocabulary  of  the  Rheims.”  Of  the 
combined  scholarship  and  literary  skill  of  the  King  James 
Bible  it  would  be  difficult  to  speak  too  highly.  As  to  style 
it  is  “the  greatest  English  classic.”  No  other  book  in  any 
language  has  been  so  often  printed,  so  much  read,  or  so 
influential  in  moulding  the  thought  of  so  many  people 
as  the  English  version  of  1611.  Its  power  and  beauty 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  281 

have  been  acknowledged  by  all  competent  critics.  A  par¬ 
ticularly  significant  tribute  has  been  paid  it  by  Frederick 
W.  Faber,  the  English  Roman  Catholic  hymn-writer. 
“Who  will  say,”  writes  Father  Faber,  “that  the  uncom¬ 
mon  beauty  and  marvellous  English  of  the  Protestant 
Bible  is  not  one  of  the  great  strongholds  of  heresy  in 
this  country?  It  lives  on  the  ear  like  a  music  that  can 
never  be  forgotten,  like  the  sound  of  church  bells,  which 
the  convert  scarcely  knows  how  he  can  forego.  Its 
felicities  seem  often  to  be  almost  things  rather  than 
words.  It  is  part  of  the  national  mind,  and  the  anchor 
of  the  national  seriousness.  Nay,  it  is  worshipped  with 
a  positive  idolatry,  in  extenuation  of  whose  fanaticism  its 
intrinsic  beauty  pleads  availingly  with  the  scholar.  The 
memory  of  the  dead  passes  into  it.  The  potent  traditions 
of  childhood  are  sterCjfbvped  in  its  verses.  It  is  the  rep¬ 
resentative  of  a  man’s  best  moments;  all  that  there  has 
been  about  him  of  soft,  and  gentle,  and  pure,  and  penitent, 
and  good  speaks  to  him  forever  out  of  his  English  Bible. 
It  is  his  sacred  thing,  which  doubt  never  dimmed  and  con¬ 
troversy  never  soiled;  and  in  the  length  and  breadth  of  the 
land  there  is  not  a  Protestant  with  one  spark  of  religious¬ 
ness  about  him  whose  spiritual  biography  is  not  in  his 
Saxon  Bible.” 

The  title-page  of  the  King  James  Bible  reads  as  fol¬ 
lows  : 

“THE  HOLY  BIBLE,  conteyning  the  Old  TESTA¬ 
MENT  and  the  New;  newly  translated  out  of  the  Origi¬ 
nal!  tongues;  and  with  the  former  translations  diligently 
compared  and  revised,  by  his  Majesties  speciall  Com- 
mandement.  Appointed  to  be  read  in  churches.  Im¬ 
printed  at  London  by  Robert  Barker,  Printer  to  the 
Kings  most  Excellent  Majestie.  Anno  Dom.  1611.” 


282  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Because  it  was  “appointed  to  be  read  in  churches”  (the 
words  still  appear  on  the  title-page  of  editions  of  the 
book  printed  in  England)  it  has  been  called  the  “Au¬ 
thorized  Version.”  But  the  authorization  was  in  no  sense 
exclusive ;  we  have  no  record  of  any  special  act  of  Church, 
Parliament,  or  King  that  would  give  it  any  exclusive 
place.  All  that  the  words  “Appointed  to  be  read  in 
Churches”  seem  to  have  signified  is  only  that  the  book 
was  printed  by  the  King’s  printer  with  the  approval  of 
King  and  Bishops  for  use  in  churches. 

Our  present-day  copies  of  the  King  James  Bible  are 
not  exact  reproductions  of  the  original  edition.  The 
spelling,  as  one  would  naturally  expect,  has  been  modern¬ 
ized.  But  this  is  not  all.  In  the  course  of  time  many 
slight  changes  have  been  silently  introduced  into  the  text. 
These  are  for  the  most  part  obvious  improvements;  they 
are  to  be  traced  generally  to  the  two  editions  of  certain 
scholars  bearing  the  dates  1762  and  1769,  respectively. 
An  example  of  these  slight  alterations  is  the  following 
from  Matthew  16:16:  “Thou  art  the  Christ”  instead  of 
“Thou  art  Christ,”  as  it  stood  in  1611.  The  marginal 
dates  found  in  most  King  James  Bibles  were  first  intro¬ 
duced  in  1701 ;  they  are  taken  from  Archbishop  Ussher’s 
work  on  Biblical  chronology  (1650-54)  ;  many  of  these 
dates  are  now  known  to  be  far  from  correct. 

The  King  James  Bible  did  not  immediately  win  its  way 
to  popular  favor.  For  a  long  time  the  Geneva  version 
remained  the  favorite  with  people  of  Puritan  sympathies. 
Yet  the  King  James  version  steadily  won  its  way  to  a  com¬ 
plete  ascendancy  over  all  other  versions.  So  strong  was 
its  hold  upon  the  people  of  English  tongue  that  for  two 
and  a  half  centuries  there  was  no  concerted  movement  of 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  283 


a  widely  representative  sort  looking  toward  a  new  version 
of  the  Scriptures. 

16.  English  Versions  between  1611  and  1881. — In  the 
long  interval  between  1611  and  1881  there  were,  as  one 
must  recognize  as  a  thing  inevitable,  many  private  ven¬ 
tures  in  Bible  translation.  One  such  was  The  New 
Testament  translated  by  William  Mace,  1729;  another 
A  Liberal  Translation  by  Dr.  Edward  Harwood,  1768. 
These  were  attempts  to  render  the  New  Testament  in  the 
language  of  the  day.  From  Mace's  translation  we  might 
cite  such  expressions  as  this:  “When  ye  fast,  don’t  put 
on  a  dismal  air  as  the  hyprocrites  do”  (Matt.  6:  16). 
Harwood  declared  it  to  be  his  desire  “to  diffuse  over  the 
sacred  page  the  elegance  of  modern  English.”  His 
efforts  produced  such  results  as  these :  “The  daughter  of 
Herodias  ...  a  young  lady  who  danced  with  inimitable 
grace  and  elegance”  (Matt.  14:6);  and  “A  gentleman  of 
splendid  family  and  opulent  fortune  had  two  sons”  (Matt. 
21:28).  Our  common  version  has,  for  the  latter  passage, 
simply:  “A  certain  man  had  two  sons.”  Of  the  other 
private  ventures  in  the  way  of  Bible  revision  or  new 
translation  mention  may  be  made  of  four.  The  first  is  a 
version  of  the  whole  Bible  made  by  Charles  Thompson, 
once  Secretary  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 
This  was  published  in  Philadelphia  in  1808.  It  is  a 
work  of  considerable  merit,  but  its  historical  interest  lies 
in  the  fact  that  it  is  the  first  version  of  the  Bible  produced 
in  America.  Some  years  before  the  great  “Revision”  was 
undertaken,  some  American  Baptist  scholars  made  a  ver¬ 
sion  of  the  New  Testament  designed  to  give  clear  expres¬ 
sion  to  their  views  of  baptism.  Also  Professor  Noyes  of 
the  Harvard  Divinity  School  made  a  version  of  the  New 
Testament.  Of  more  value  than  these  was  a  translation 


284  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


of  the  New  Testament  by  Dr.  Henry  Alford,  Dean  of 
Canterbury  (London,  1862,  second  edition  1867).  Dr. 
Alford  was  one  of  the  ablest  Biblical  scholars  of  his  time, 
and  his  work  is  of  high  merit.  Later  he  became  an  im¬ 
portant  member  of  the  Committee  of  Revisers  for  the 
Revision  (of  1881-1885), 

17.  The  Anglo-American  Revision. — When  we  reflect 
upon  the  felicity,  beauty  and  power  of  the  King  James 
Bible,  upon  the  honor  and  dignity  that  have  been  accorded 
it,  upon  the  measure  of  its  influence  in  shaping  the  thought 
and  language  of  all  that  speak  the  English  tongue,  we 
naturally  ask,  What  considerations  were  deemed  sufficient 
to  require  a  fresh  revision  of  that  great  translation  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures?  The  answer  is  clear  and  simple:  It 
was  the  new  knowledge  of  the  languages  and  text  of  the 
Bible. 

In  the  earlier  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century  such 
scholars  as  Gesenius  and  Winer  made  a  new  epoch  in  the 
grammar  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Further 
grammatical  and  lexical  discoveries  and  improvements 
were  made  in  no  small  number  from  time  to  time.  In  this 
respect  Biblical  science  was  simply  keeping  step  with  the 
advance  in  philological  science  generally.  Many  faulty 
renderings  were  pointed  out  in  the  modern  commentaries 
on  the  Biblical  books,  and  improvements  suggested.  Of 
at  least  equal  interest  and  importance  was  the  rapid  ad¬ 
vance  in  the  knowledge  of  the  text.  A  great  many  valu¬ 
able  manuscripts,  especially  of  the  New  Testament,  had 
come  to  light  in  the  long  interval.  Not  one  of  the  five 
best  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  was  known  to  the 
King  James  translators.  Through  the  labors  of  a  long 
line  of  scholars,  from  Bengel  and  Griesbach  to  Westcott 
and  Hort,  the  multitudes  of  texts  had  been  carefully  com- 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  285 


pared.  An  improved  text,  especially  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  was  already  in  the  possession  of  the  scholars,  there¬ 
fore  there  arose  a  general  demand  for  a  revision  that 
should  give  the  people  the  benefit  of  the  new  knowledge, 
both  of  the  text  and  of  the  languages  of  the  Scriptures. 
In  addition  to  this  major  consideration  it  was  pointed  out 
that  here  and  there  the  language  of  the  King  James  Bible 
had  become  almost  obsolete. 

The  first  positive  step  looking  toward  revision  was  taken 
in  the  Upper  House  of  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury 
on  February  10,  1870,  when  it  was  voted  to  appoint  a 
committee  to  report  upon  the  advisability  of  a  revision. 
Accordingly,  within  a  few  months  a  Joint  Committee  of 
both  houses  of  Convocation  was  elected  and  duly  in¬ 
structed  and  empowered  for  their  task.  The  funda¬ 
mental  Resolutions  pertaining  to  the  Revision  were 
adopted  by  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury  on  the  third 
and  fifth  days  of  May,  1870.  They  comprised  five 
points,  of  which  the  last  three  are  in  brief  as  follows : 
That  a  new  translation  is  not  contemplated,  nor  any 
alteration  in  language  except  where  competent  scholars 
deemed  such  change  necessary;  that  in  the  changes  the 
style  of  the  existing  version  be  closely  followed ;  that  Con¬ 
vocation  should  nominate  a  body  of  its  own  members  to 
undertake  the  work  of  revision,  “who  shall  be  at  liberty 
to  invite  the  cooperation  of  any  eminent  for  scholarship 
to  whatever  nation  or  religious  body  they  may  belong.” 
The  Committee  formed  in  pursuance  of  this  action  then 
on  the  25th  day  of  May,  1870,  agreed  to  certain  Prin¬ 
ciples  and  Rules,  chief  among  which  are  those  limiting 
the  number  of  changes  as  closely  as  possible  and  those 
guaranteeing  the  amplest  discussion  and  fullest  inquiry  on 
all  disputed  points. 


286  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

The  Committee  proper  was  entirely  British;  but  from 
the  beginning  of  the  enterprise  it  was  felt  that  the  co¬ 
operation  of  American  scholars  was  desirable  and  neces¬ 
sary.  Accordingly  an  American  Committee  of  Revision 
was  appointed.  This  Committee  was  to  be  consulted  on 
all  matters  of  text  and  translation,  but  the  British  Com¬ 
mittee  was  to  have  the  right  of  final  decision  as  to  all 
renderings.  The  American  Committee,  however,  was  to 
have  the  privilege  of  recording  in  an  Appendix  a  list  of 
readings  and  renderings  preferred  by  them;  and  further, 
after  the  lapse  of  twenty  years  from  the  publication  of 
the  Revised  New  Testament,  they  should  be  at  liberty  to 
publish  an  edition  embodying  their  preferences  in  the 
text.  These  privileges  the  American  Committee  used; 
the  final  result  was  “The  American  Standard  Edition”  of 
the  Revised  Version  (Thomas  Nelson  &  Sons,  1901). 

The  British  Committee  divided  itself  into  two  Com¬ 
panies,  the  one  for  the  Old  Testament,  the  other  for  the 
New.  These  Companies  numbered  about  27  members 
each  at  the  beginning.  The  New  Testament  Company 
suffered  the  loss  of  four  by  death;  there  were  ten  deaths 
in  the  Old  Testament  Company,  but  in  the  earlier  years 
new  members  were  added  to  fill  vacancies.  The  New 
Testament  Company  began  its  work  on  June  22,  1870, 
and  finished  it  on  November  11,  1880.  The  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  Company  met  for  the  first  time  on  June  30,  1870, 
and  concluded  its  work  on  June  20,  1884.  The  publica¬ 
tion  took  place  on  May  17,  1881,  and  May  19,  1885,  re¬ 
spectively.  (For  a  fuller  account  of  the  Revision  see  the 
highly  instructive  Prefaces  to  the  New  and  Old  Testa¬ 
ments,  also  the  Preface  to  the  American  Standard  Edi¬ 
tion.  ) 

The  work  of  revision  was  carried  on  with  the  greatest 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  287 


patience,  thoroughness  and  impartiality.  In  the  matter 
of  faithfulness  to  the  original  text  the  Revision  is  deserv¬ 
ing  of  all  praise.  Its  clearness  and  exactness  of  rendering 
are  everywhere  recognized.  And  yet  the  reception  of  the 
work  has  been  disappointing.  By  universal  consent  it  is 
far  inferior  to  the  King  James  Version  in  rhythm  and  in 
literary  charm  generally.  Then,  too,  it  continually  re¬ 
minds  one  of  the  study — the  version  is  a  bit  pedantic.  If 
in  addition  to  the  flower  of  British  and  American  Biblical 
scholars  the  Committee  had  invited  such  men  as  Tenny¬ 
son,  Ruskin  and  Matthew  Arnold,  and  such  as  Lowell, 
Longfellow  and  Holmes  to  cooperate  with  them,  we  might 
have  had  a  version  that  would  have  satisfied  every  just 
demand. 

In  spite  of  its  faults,  however,  the  Revised  Version  has 
been  gradually  winning  its  way.  Its  greatly  superior  cor¬ 
rectness  is  forcing  general  recognition.  The  defenders 
of  the  Revision  have  been  many,  and  they  have  wielded 
strong  weapons.  The  best  brief  discussion  of  the  prac¬ 
tical  merits  of  the  work  is  that  by  Dr.  George  Milligan, 
'‘The  Expository  Value  of  the  Revised  Version.”  In 
addition  to  this,  one  may  well  consult  the  fuller  discussions 
of  Westcott  (“Some  Lessons  of  the  Revised  Version  of 
the  New  Testament,”  1897)  and  Ellicott  (“Addresses  on 
the  Revised  Version  of  Holy  Scripture,”  1901).  The 
use  of  a  Parallel  Bible  or  Parallel  New  Testament  is 
indispensable  for  those  who  would  make  a  real  compari¬ 
son  of  the  two  versions. 

The  revision  of  the  New  Testament  has  given  less 
satisfaction  than  that  of  the  Old,  but,  at  all  events,  the 
Revised  Version  sheds  great  light  upon  the  meaning  of 
the  text.  Perhaps  this  great  revision  will  prove  to  have 
been  only  a  necessary  preliminary  step  toward  a  real 


288  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


triumph  of  scholarship  united  with  literary  grace.  A 
version  which  is  thoroughly  critical  and  yet  done  into 
idiomatic  English  of  high  literary  skill  would  be  wel¬ 
comed  by  multitudes. 

18.  Recent  Versions  of  the  Bible  in  English  and  other 
Tongues. — Since  the  publication  of  the  Revision  (1881, 
1885,  and  1901)  several  modern  English  versions  have 
appeared.  Perhaps  the  most  important  of  these  are  the 
following:  (1)  '‘The  Modern  Speech  New  Testament/^ 
translated  by  R.  F.  Weymouth.  The  work  is  described 
on  the  title-page  as  ^‘an  idiomatic  translation  into  every¬ 
day  English.”  It  was  published  in  London  in  1902,  and 
has  found  a  multitude  of  appreciative  readers.  Of  course 
it  was  not  designed  to  supplant  the  Revised  or  the  Au¬ 
thorized  version.  (2)  “The  New  Testament,  a  New 
Translation  by  James  Moffatt,  D.  D.,  D.  Litt.,  Yates 
Professor  of  New  Testament  Greek  and  Exegesis,  Mans¬ 
field  College,  Oxford,  1913.”  This  also  is  a  modern 
speech  version,  and  it  shows  even  finer  insight  and  power 
of  expression  than  Weymouth.  It  is  specially  useful  to 
the  Bible  student.  (3)  “The  Holy  Scriptures,  according 
to  the  Masoretic  Text,  a  New  Translation,  with  the  aid 
of  previous  Versions  and  with  constant  consultation  of 
Jewish  Authorities.  Philadelphia.  The  Jewish  Publica¬ 
tion  Society  of  America,  5677-1917.”  (The  term  ‘*Holy 
Scriptures”  means  in  this  instance  only  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.)  The  work  has  been  well  done,  and  is  of  interest 
to  Christian  scholars  as  showing  the  best  Jewish  critical 
thought  upon  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament. 

In  Germany  several  modern  versions  have  been  oflFered 
to  the  public.  A  revision  of  Luther’s  version  (1883- 
1890)  has  proved  comparatively  unsuccessful.  The 
people  still  cling  fondly  to  the  old  version  of  Luther. 


BIBLE  VERSIONS:  WICKLIF  AND  AFTER  289 

Since  that  date  several  excellent  critical  translations  have 
appeared,  and  also  a  few  designed  for  more  popular  use. 
Weizsacker’s  translation  of  the  New  Testament  is  a 
marvel  of  scholarship  and  literary  skill.  The  translation 
of  the  Old  Testament  edited  by  Kautzsch  (a  fourth  edi¬ 
tion,  thoroughly  revised,  under  the  editorship  of  Bertho- 
let,  is  now  complete  1923),  though  of  less  literary  merit, 
is  equally  scholarly.  The  400th  anniversary  of  the  Luther 
New  Testament  in  1922  has  awakened  a  pretty  extensive 
demand  for  a  really  adequate  revision  of  the  Luther  Bible. 

The  modern  French  translation  by  Louis  Segond  was 
published  in  1873  and  has  won  no  little  praise. 

The  history  of  Bible  versions  represents  an  amazing 
measure  of  devotion  and  scholarly  research.  It  repre¬ 
sents  also  in  the  main  a  general  progress  in  the  under¬ 
standing  of  the  text.  Not  that  a  final  version  is  to  be 
thought  of!  Every  living  tongue  undergoes  inevitable 
changes  and  this  tends  in  time  to  antiquate  any  version, 
however  excellent.  But  scholarship,  too,  advances  as  time 
passes.  New  light  upon  the  text  demands  expression  in 
our  versions.  The  Bible  student  will  find  it  abundantly 
worth  while  to  compare  the  versions  and,  if  possible,  to 
study  them,  along  with  the  original  texts.  It  is  of  par¬ 
ticular  interest  to  read  a  “modern  speech  translation”  in 
comparison  with  the  standard  versions. 

There  is  one  lesson  which,  above  others,  should  be 
taken  to  heart  in  connection  with  the  study  of  the  ver¬ 
sions,  namely,  that  God  has  not  made  the  understanding 
of  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  dependent  upon  the  faultless 
scholarship  of  translators.  The  word  of  God  is  a  free 
and  living  thing,  and  is  not  bound  by  the  letter  of 
Scripture. 


PART  IV:  THE  BIBLE  IN  THE  CHURCH 


We  have  traced  in  outline  the  history  of  the 
Bible  in  the  making  and  of  its  transmission 
through  the  centuries,  and  have  seen  how  it  has 
been  given  to  the  peoples  of  the  earth  in  their 
own  tongues.  We  come  now  to  consider  the 
significance  of  the  Bible  for  the  faith  and  life 
of  the  church. 


PART  IV:  THE  BIBLE  IN  THE 

CHURCH 

Chapter  XIX 

THE  HISTORIC  PLACE  OF  THE  BIBLE  IN  THi 

CHURCH 

While  multitudes  of  books  have  been  written  on  the 
Bible  in  the  making,  the  history  of  “the  finished  Bible” 
has  been  strangely  neglected.  Indeed,  no  book  as  yet 
gives  an  adequate  treatment  of  the  subject.^  Yet  the 
finished  Bible  has  had  a  history  of  immense  interest  and 
significance. 

1.  Biblical  authority  an  historic  fact. 

So  long  as  the  church  has  had  the  Bible  she  has 
ascribed  to  it  a  divine  authority.  Whatever  the  reason 
or  ground  for  it,  the  fact  itself  is  beyond  question.  No 
religious  body  calling  itself  Christian  has  ever  thought 
of  repudiating  the  Bible.  Not  that  the  attitude  toward  the 
Bible  has  been  always  and  everywhere  the  same  in  Chris¬ 
tendom.  All  branches  of  the  church  agree  indeed  in 
acknowledging  the  divine  authority  of  the  Bible,  but  there 

^  Ernst  von  Dobschiitz  has  made  it  known  that  he  hopes  to  supply 
the  deficiency.  Already  he  has  made  an  important  contribution  to 
this  end  in  his  article  on  “The  Bible  in  the  Church”  in  Hastings' 
Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics.  The  design  of  von  Dobschiitz 
was  inspired  by  Kahler’s  brief  sketch,  “Die  Geschichte  der  Bibel,” 
incorporated  in  his  volume  “Zur  Bibelfrage,”  1907. 

293 


294  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


are  important  differences  of  opinion  regarding  the  nature 
and  scope  of  its  authority. 

2.  Biblical  authority  antedates  the  written  word. 

The  authority  of  the  word  was  acknowledged  in  the 
church  even  while  as  yet  it  was  but  a  spoken  word.  In 
due  time  the  word,  which  “at  the  first  was  spoken  by  the 
Lord  himself  and  was  confirmed  unto  us  by  those  who 
heard  him,”  became  also  a  written  word;  but  it  gained 
no  new  authority  by  being  written.  The  authority  which 
the  church  recognized  and  acknowledged  was  the  author¬ 
ity  of  God  himself  speaking  through  his  chosen  messen¬ 
gers.  Whether  the  word  came  in  spoken  or  in  written 
form  was  felt  to  make  no  difference  in  its  authority. 

When  Jesus  appeared,  the  Jewish  people  had  a  Bible,  a 
written  word.  And  they  held  this  Bible  to  be  finished  and 
closed  for  all  time.  Its  authority  was  for  them  unim¬ 
peachable.  “It  is  written!”  A  clear  appeal  to  Scripture 
was  held  to  be  sufficient  to  end  all  controversy.  But  the 
written  word  even  of  the  Old  Testament  had  first  been — 
at  least  in  the  main — a  spoken  word. 

Jesus  himself  stood  firmly  upon  the  Old  Testament  as 
the  word  of  God.  Yet  his  knowledge  of  the  Father  was 
such  that  he  could  not  regard  the  Old  Testament  revela¬ 
tion  as  complete.  He  therefore  came  “to  fulfill,”  that  is, 
to  supply  what  was  lacking  both  in  the  Law  and  in  the 
Prophets.  He  spoke  also  “as  one  having  authority,  and 
not  as  the  scribes.”  With  supreme  authority  he  could 
say :  “Of  old  time  it  hath  been  said  unto  you  .  .  .  but 
I  say  unto  you.”  He  brought  the  new  wine  that  could 
not  but  burst  the  old  wineskins.  The  new  and  larger 
message  at  length  found  expression  in  a  literature,  which 


THE  HISTORIC  PLACE  OF  THE  BIBLE  295 

eventually  gained  official  recognition  as  “Holy  Scrips 
ture”  along  with  the  Old  Testament. 

3.  The  church  is  founded  upon  the  word. 

Not  upon  the  written  as  over  against  the  spoken  word^ 
nor  upon  the  spoken  as  over  against  the  written  word. 
The  church  was  living  and  growing  before  there  were 
any  New  Testament  scriptures.  Moreover,  the  New 
Testament,  viewed  historically,  was  manifestly  brought 
forth  by  the  church.  It  is  not  the  words  as  particular 
forms  of  language  but  the  word  as  pointing  to  the  divine 
truth  and  reality  that  is  the  foundation  of  the  church.  It 
is  Jesus  Christ  himself,  the  supreme  revealer  of  God,  the 
living  word,  who  is  the  church’s  one  foundation;  but  it 
is  through  the  word  of  Biblical  testimony  to  him  that 
the  church  is  begotten  and  lives  and  grows.  No  one  can 
create  the  Christ  or  reach  him  in  the  realm  of  fancy.  No 
man  can  reasonably  hope  to  discover  the  real  Christ  with¬ 
out  the  aid  of  those  who  knew  him  as  he  lived  among 
men.  No  apostolic  preaching,  no  church. 

4.  Historical  phases  of  the  church's  attitude  toward  the 
Bible. 

So  long  as  any  of  the  apostles  lived,  the  church  every¬ 
where  accorded  them  peculiar  honor  and  held  their  word 
in  the  highest  respect.  Not  that  the  apostles  were  thought 
of  as  having  any  authority  of  their  own.  Even  Jesus 
came  not  in  his  own  name,  but  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
who  had  sent  him.  And  the  apostles,  for  their  part,  laid 
no  claim  to  either  personal  or  official  authority.  “Min¬ 
isters  through  whom  ye  became  believers,”  “your  servants 
for  Jesus’  sake,”  “not  lords  over  your  faith,  but  helpers 
of  your  joy” — such  is  Paul’s  thought  of  the  apostolic 


296  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


office.  And  the  churches  honored  the  apostles,  at  the 
first,  solely  as  bearers  of  a  heavenly  message,  certainly 
not  because  of  any  authority  lodged  in  an  office.  Yet 
neither  did  the  apostles  themselves  fail  to  assert,  nor  di(J 
the  Christian  people  fail  to  recognize,  that  the  word 
preached  came  with  the  highest  possible  authority.  It  was 
the  authority  of  the  truth  itself;  the  word  “came  with 
power,”  with  the  power  to  convince  and  to  gain  that  divine 
mastery  over  the  spirit  of  man  which  is  perfect  liberty. 

So  long  as  this  free  and  inward  relation  to  the  earliest 
witnesses  to  the  gospel  prevailed,  nothing  but  good  could 
come  from  honoring  the  apostolic  word.  Very  early, 
however,  the  leaven  of  secularism  began  to  work  in  the 
church.  It  was,  of  course,  right  and  necessary  that  the 
church  should  develop  some  sort  of  outward  organiza¬ 
tion;  for  in  order  to  accomplish  her  work  in  the  world 
she  must  have  a  body  as  well  as  a  spirit.  But  the  move¬ 
ment  toward  an  ever  firmer  and  more  complex  organiza¬ 
tion  brought  with  it  many  a  subtle  temptation  to  try  the 
use  of  worldly  means  for  the  accomplishment  of  spiritual 
ends.  And  so  it  came  about  that  an  external  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  authority  more  and  more  displaced  the  free  spiritual 
relation  to  the  gospel. 

During  the  period  in  which  the  church  was  moving 
toward  a  firm  general  organization  the  watchword  was 
apostolicity.  That  is  to  say,  whatever  is  apostolic  is  true 
and  binding.  And  at  the  close  of  this  period  the  church 
was  persuaded  that  she  had  a  threefold  standard  and  war¬ 
rant  of  apostolic  teaching  and  practice:  (1)  the  apostolic 
scriptures  canonized  along  with  the  Old  Testament;  (2) 
the  bishops,  the  successors  of  the  apostles  and  continua- 
tors  of  their  teaching  and  practice;  (3)  the  dogma  of  the 


THE  HISTORIC  PLACE  OF  THE  BIBLE  297 

^‘Catholic’'  (universal)  Church,  especially  as  set  forth 
in  the  Nicene  Creed  (A.  D.  325). 

Of  these  three  institutions  whose  authority  was  ac¬ 
knowledged  by  the  ancient  Catholic  Church,  the  first  has 
stood  the  test  of  time  and  criticism  far  better  than  the 
others.  The  episcopate  has  not  proved  a  sure  safeguard 
of  apostolic  teaching  and  practice.  The  very  assumption 
of  security  from  substantial  error  really  made  an  uncon¬ 
scious  drift  away  from  the  original  direction  a  most  likely 
thing.  And  as  for  the  ancient  dogma,  however  excellent 
it  may  be  in  its  main  substance,  it  has  lost  its  hold  upon 
many  modern  Christians.  But  the  New  Testament  is  a 
living  fountain  to  which  the  church  joyfully  turns  ever 
and  again. 

That  phase  of  the  history  of  the  Bible  in  the  church, 
which  began  with  the  formation  of  the  ancient  Catholic 
Church,  lasted  with  no  very  marked  change  until  the 
Reformation.  In  all  this  period  the  increasing  emphasis 
upon  the  divine  authority  of  the  hierarchy  forced  the 
Bible  more  and  more  into  the  background.  Since  the 
living  successors  of  the  apostles  were  guiding  the  church, 
why  should  anyone  trouble  himself  about  the  Scriptures? 
In  all  the  Middle  Ages  no  recognized  leader  of  church 
thought  seriously  raised  the  question  of  squaring  the 
church’s  doctrine  with  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  identity  of  the  two  was  simply  taken  for  granted. 

At  length,  however,  certain  souls,  whose  longing  for 
religious  certainty  the  dogma  of  the  church  had  failed  to 
satisfy,  found  their  way  back  to  the  New  Testament  and 
there  found  light  and  peace.  The  new  light  brought 
about  the  Reformation;  and  since  it  sprang  from  a  new 
insight  into  the  New  Testament,  the  Reformation  brought 
about  a  fundamental  change  of  attitude  toward  Scripture 


298  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


and  church  tradition.  Popes  and  Councils,  Luther  de¬ 
clared,  might  err  and  indeed  had  erred,  but  the  Scriptures 
could  be  unconditionally  relied  on.  According  to  the 
principles  of  the  Reformation,  church  doctrine  and  prac¬ 
tice  are  to  be  strictly  controlled  by  the  teachings  of  the 
New  Testament,  while  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  the 
Scriptures  continue  to  be  subordinate  to  ecclesiastical 
tradition. 

But  the  Reformers  did  not  appeal,  as  some  suppose,  to 
the  mere  letter  of  Scripture,  but  rather  to  its  spirit  and 
substance.  If  they  had  appealed  from  the  external  au¬ 
thority  of  a  contemporary  pope  to  the  mere  word  of  a 
Paul  or  a  John  as  another  external  authority,  nothing 
would  have  been  gained  for  faith.  If  a  contemporary 
pope  might  err,  why  not  also  an  apostle  in  his  day?  Per¬ 
ceiving  this  possibility,  the  Reformers  sought  to  probe  to 
the  very  heart  of  the  matter.  They  recognized  that  even 
an  apostle’s  word  could  give  no  assurance  of  a  gracious 
God,  unless  God  himself  by  his  Spirit  should  confirm  the 
word  by  an  inward  testimony.  To  know  the  Scripture 
promises  true,  one  must  find  them  attested  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  himself  (testimonium  Spiritus  sancti  internum), 
or,  as  we  commonly  express  it  to-day,  by  experience.  The 
standpoint  of  Luther  and  the  other  Reformers  was,  there¬ 
fore,  not  a  slavish  subjection  to  the  letter  of  Scripture. 
According  to  Luther  the  Bible  is  Holy  Scripture  because 
and  in  so  far  as  it  has  to  do  with  Christ.  Whatever  in 
the  Bible  does  not  concern  Christ  and  our  relation  to  him 
was  for  Luther  irrelevant  to  faith. 

Later  phases  of  the  Protestant  attitude  toward  the  Bible 
represent  a  considerable  variety.  The  simple  and  genu¬ 
inely  religious  conception  of  the  function  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  that  we  have  seen  in  the  Reformers  soon  gave  way  to 


THE  HISTORIC  PLACE  OF  THE  BIBLE  299 


a  rigid  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  and  complete  iner¬ 
rancy  that  has  proved  a  hindrance  to  the  free  religious 
operation  of  the  word.  This  conception  of  the  Bible  in 
the  older  Protestant  orthodoxy  was  the  seed  of  a  harvest 
of  distress  and  uncertainty  which  the  church  has  been 
reaping  in  more  recent  times.  For  when  modern  inquiry 
showed  the  untenableness  of  the  dogma  of  the  miraculous 
inerrancy  of  the  letter  of  Scripture,  multitudes  of  falsely 
instructed  Christians  felt  that  the  very  foundations  were 
being  removed.  But  in  some  quarters  a  very  different 
tendency  of  thought  in  relation  to  the  Bible  has  been 
manifest.  A  rather  negative  inference  as  to  the  suprem¬ 
acy  of  the  Bible  has  been  drawn  by  many  from  the  results 
of  historical  criticism.  The  present  situation  is  such  as  to 
force  upon  the  church  a  careful  reconsideration  of  the 
whole  Bible  question.  Clear  and  satisfying  answers  to 
certain  fundamental  questions  are  demanded.  What  is 
the  real  function  of  the  Bible?  Does  it  bring  a  revelation 
from  God?  What  are  we  to  think  of  the  relation  between 
the  divine  and  the  human  element  in  it?  For  these  and 
other  like  questions  many  modern  Christians  have  no 
answer. 

5.  The  nature  and  scope  of  the  authority  of  the  Bible. 

The  variation  in  Christian  opinion  regarding  the  nature 
and  scope  of  the  Bible’s  authority  may  be  largely  referred 
to  a  want  of  clearness  as  to  the  function  of  the  Bible. 
It  is  universally  agreed  that  the  chief  function  of  the 
Bible  is  religious — to  acquaint  men  with  God.  But  it  is 
necessary  to  go  further  and  say:  The  sole  function  of  the 
Bible,  as  Bible,  is  religious.  The  Bible  has,  it  is  true,  a 
multitude  of  incidental  uses  and  values.  It  has  great 
interest  and  significance  as  literature,  it  is  an  important 


300  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


historical  source-book,  it  has  unusual  value  for  ethical 
instruction.  But  the  Bible  as  Bible  has  but  the  one  func¬ 
tion — to  bring  man  into  fellowship  with  God. 

Since  the  special  function  of  the  Bible  is  purely  relig¬ 
ious,  it  follows  that  its  authority  for  the  church  is  a 
purely  religious  authority.  The  sufficiency  of  the  Bible  in 
the  domain  of  religion  is  established  by  the  fact  that  it 
actually  does  bring  men  into  conscious  fellowship  with 
God.  Its  excellences  or  its  defects  in  matters  of  world- 
knowledge  are  irrelevant  to  faith.  In  respect  of  knowl¬ 
edge  of  history  and  nature  the  Biblical  writers  were  chil¬ 
dren  of  their  time.  Their  religious  significance  for  us 
depends  solely  upon  their  knowledge  of  God.  No  amount 
of  mere  world-knowledge  could  give  the  Bibl-e  religious 
authority,  and  its  scientific  limitations  can  take  away 
nothing  from  the  force  of  its  religious  message. 

Just  as  the  scope  of  the  Bible’s  authority  is  the  domain 
of  religion  and  nothing  else,  so  the  nature  of  its  authority 
IS  inward  and  spiritual.  There  is  no  place  for  outward 
constraint  in  matters  of  the  spirit.  No  human  power  can 
have  the  right  to  compel  or  require  assent  to  any  teaching, 
for  God  himself  does  not  deal  so  with  men  and  therefore 
he  has  committed  no  such  authority  to  men.  Besides, 
absolutely  nothing  is  gained  for  religion  by  a  formal 
assent  or  an  outward  conformity.  No  man,  not  even  an 
apostle,  can  believe  for  another.  I  must  have  personal 
access  to  the  truth  by  which  I  am  to  live.  Although  the 
New  Testament  is  the  testimony  of  those  who  had  every 
opportunity  to  know  the  mind  of  Christ  and  were  so  sure 
of  the  truth  that  they  were  ready  to  die  for  it,  and 
although  their  testimony  stands  before  us  with  all  the 
sanctions  of  Christian  history  and  experience,  yet  that 
New  Testament  demands  of  us  no  blind  submission  to  its 


THE  HISTORIC  PLACE  OF  THE  BIBLE  301 

word.  It  only  asks  that  we  open  our  eyes  to  see  the  truth 
and  obey  it  as  we  see  it.  We  need  the  witness  of  the 
apostles,  but  not  in  order  that  they  may  do  our  knowing 
and  believing  for  us.  We  need  the  witness  of  the  earliest 
believers  in  order  that,  by  their  aid,  v/e,  too,  may  find  and 
share  the  treasures  that  made  them  rich. 

Many  people  take  offense  at  the  word  authority;  it 
seems  to  smack  of  outward  constraint,  and  they  will  have 
none  of  it.  But  the  mightiest  constraint  in  the  world  is 
that  of  truth  and  love.  He  who  in  his  inmost  soul  yields 
conscience,  heart  and  will  to  the  mastery  of  the  truth  of 
God  will  know  himself  held  fast  and  yet  in  perfect  liberty. 

The  question  of  the  relation  of  the  Bible  to  the  church 
as  an  organization  and  to  the  individual  member  of  the 
church  is  of  much  historic  and  present  interest.  Catholi¬ 
cism  emphasizes  the  claim  of  the  church  to  control  the  use 
of  the  Bible;  Protestantism  asserts  the  individual’s  full 
right  to  an  open  Bible.  Doubtless  a  certain  element  of 
truth  lies  back  of  the  Catholic  claim,  while  the  thought 
of  the  Bible  as  the  individual’s  book  is  liable  to  abuse. 
For  the  Bible  is  the  church’s  book,  and  also  the  indi¬ 
vidual’s  book. 

Roman  Catholicism  prizes  the  Bible  and  even  encour¬ 
ages  the  reading  of  it  under  the  strict  control  of  the 
church.  But  in  subordinating  the  Bible  to  church  tradi¬ 
tion  the  whole  tendency  is  to  take  the  Bible  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  laity;  and  in  any  event  ecclesiastical  control 
of  Bible  reading  means  the  placing  of  restrictions  upon 
the  understanding  of  the  Bible.  The  extreme  opposite 
is  the  attitude  of  some  fanatical  sects,  who  fancy  that  they 
can  go  straight  to  the  Bible  and  find  the  will  of  God 
without  the  help  of  the  full  body  of  believers.  But  he 
who  despises  history  and  severs  the  cord  of  fellowship 


302  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


with  the  great  company  of  the  good  and  wise  in  the 
church  of  the  present  or  the  past,  cannot  understand  and 
appropriate  the  full  message  of  the  Bible.  Christianity 
is  expressing  itself  ever  anew  and  in  fresh  forms  through¬ 
out  history.  Present-day  Christianity  must  be  interpreted 
and  its  tendencies  corrected  in  the  light  of  primitive 
Christianity,  and  primitive  Christianity  must  be  inter¬ 
preted  in  the  light  of  history  and  present  experience. 

The  Bible  is  in  the  first  instance  the  church's  book.  It 
grew  out  of  the  fellowship;  it  was  made  to  serve  the 
fellowship.  It  cannot  be  made  the  basis  of  a  purely  in¬ 
dividualistic  piety.  It  is  the  fountain  and  the  standard 
of  the  church’s  teaching  and  practice.  And  yet  it  is  a 
book  for  the  individual,  in  so  far  as  the  individual  recog¬ 
nizes  himself  as  a  member  of  Christ’s  body,  and  seeks  to 
serve  others  and  at  the  same  time  to  be  helped  by  others. 

To  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  Bible  is  something 
vastly  more  than  to  ascribe  to  the  book  an  inapproachable 
dignity.  Biblical  authority  is  through  and  through  a 
practical  thing.  The  question  is  not  what  dignity  we 
ascribe  to  the  Bible,  but  what  influence  and  control  the 
Bible  actually  exerts,  or  of  right  should  exert,  in  the 
church. 

The  Bible  is  the  chief  means  of  grace,  and  it  has  been 
so  since  it  came  into  being.  Because  God  is  in  it,  because 
it  is  “God-breathing,”  the  Scriptures  have  been  found 
“profitable  for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for 
instruction  in  righteousness.”  An  historic  but  secondary 
use  of  the  Scriptures  is  to  draw  upon  it  and  appeal  to 
it  for  the  establishment  of  dogma.  Fundamentally  the 
principle  is  right,  yet  many  evils  entered  in  with  it.  In 
the  first  place,  too  much  stress  was  laid  upon  the  formal 
wording  of  the  dogma,  and  that  tended  to  enslave  men’s 


THE  HISTORIC  PLACE  OF  THE  BIBLE  303 


minds.  Also  the  Scripture  was  in  many  instances  per¬ 
verted  in  order  to  lend  support  to  dogma.  If  the  dogma 
had  been  conceived  as  nothing  more  than  an  approxima¬ 
tion  to  a  perfect  summary  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel,  to 
which  believers  gave  spontaneous  consent,  yet  with  the 
understanding  that  the  formula  was  subject  to  revision 
and  improvement  from  time  to  time  or  perhaps  might 
be  allowed  to  fall  into  disuse,  then  there  would  be  nothing 
objectionable  in  the  use  of  dogma,  or  in  the  appeal  to 
Scripture  to  confirm  it.  But  there  was  a  general  tendency 
to  hold  dogma  to  be  essentially  perfect  for  all  time.  This 
holds  true  not  only  in  respect  to  the  Greek  and  the  Roman 
Catholic  Churches  but  in  no  small  measure  also  in  respect 
to  Protestantism.  And  wherever  dogma  is  so  exalted, 
the  Bible  is  almost  sure  to  be  subordinated  to  it.  It  was 
the  Reformation  which  again  restored  the  Bible  to  its 
rightful  place  and  use;  and  yet  nothing  could  exceed  the 
violence  done  to  the  sense  of  the  Bible  by  some  Protes¬ 
tants,  who  have  used  it  chiefly  as  a  storehouse  of  proof- 
texts. 

The  most  significant  aspect  of  the  Bible’s  place  in  the 
church  is  its  settled  use  in  public  worship  and  instruction. 
In  Catholicism  the  public  reading  of  the  Scriptures  has 
been  sacrificed  to  the  magnifying  of  ritual,  but  it  has 
never  been  wholly  discontinued.  Aside  from  liturgical 
formulas,  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  only  writings  that 
have  ever  been  honored  by  being  regularly  read  in  the 
public  worship  of  Christendom.  Again,  the  church’s 
preaching  as  a  part  of  stated  public  worship  has  been 
almost  universally  based  upon  the  Bible.  The  same  is 
true  of  the  largest  part  of  the  regular  systems  of  religious 
instruction  in  Christendom.  The  Bible  formed  the  most 
important  element  in  ancient  and  modern  catechetical 


304  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

instruction  and  is  the  chief  textbook  in  the  modern  Sun¬ 
day  school.  And  no  one  can  fail  to  be  impressed  by  the 
fact  that  the  church’s  songs — her  hymns,  psalms  and 
anthems — are  directly  or  indirectly  Biblical.  Even  the 
adornments  of  the  churches — the  paintings,  the  mosaics, 
the  sculptures — for  the  most  part  represent  Biblical  sub¬ 
jects.  Then  there  is  the  Bible  in  the  private  use  of  Chris¬ 
tians.  In  every  great  forward  movement  of  Protestant¬ 
ism  the  private  use  of  the  Bible  has  been  immensely 
increased.  Indeed,  the  greatest  advances  in  religious  life 
from  the  beginning  have  been  associated  with  a  revival 
of  Bible  reading. 

What  the  church  thinks  of  her  Bible  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  in  the  great  missionary  enterprises  of  the  Church 
the  Bible  was  given  to  the  people  at  the  earliest  moment. 
In  those  missions  in  which  the  Bible  was  not  given  to  the 
people  (as  in  some  Catholic  missions),  the  work  has  not 
stood. 


Chapter  XX 


THE  BIBLE  AND  REVELATION 

The  impressive  history  of  the  influence  of  the  Bible 
upon  the  church  presupposes  a  sufficient  cause.  The 
church  is  sure  that  the  preeminence  of  the  Bible  is  not 
due  to  her  voice  but  to  the  power  of  God.  For  the  Bible, 
she  is  persuaded,  brings  a  real  revelation  of  God  himself. 
Does  the  Bible  truly  disclose  God?  This  is  the  funda¬ 
mental  question  as  to  the  Bible’s  significance.  Is  the 
Bible  in  the  last  analysis  a  record  of  men’s  thoughts  and 
experience  in  the  course  of  a  long  but  unsuccessful  search 
after  God?  Or  is  it  a  true  witness  to  the  self-revealing 
God?  If  it  is  the  former,  it  would  have  a  certain  dubious 
and  pathetic  interest  for  us,  but  it  could  be  no  guiding 
light.  If  it  is  the  latter,  it  is  of  priceless  value. 

The  church  has  never  assumed  to  lend  authority  to  the 
Bible,  but  only  to  recognize  the  divine  authority  inherent 
in  it.  And  the  authority  which  she  acknowledges  is  the 
authority  of  divine  revelation.  This,  the  church  is  per¬ 
suaded,  is  the  book  which  above  all  others  bears  true 
witness  of  God.  Jesus  Christ  the  supreme  personal 
revelation  of  God  and  the  Bible  the  witness  to  that  reve¬ 
lation — this  is  the  standpoint  of  the  Christian  church. 

Taken  in  its  widest  sense,  revelation  means  the  unveiling 
or  disclosing  of  anything  that  was  hidden.  In  the  domain 
of  religion,  however,  revelation  can  properly  mean  only 
the  self -manifestation  and  self -imparting  of  God,  If 

m 


306  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


God  has  disclosed  himself — if  he  has  given  us  to  know  his 
heart,  his  purpose,  his  personal  attitude  toward  us — then 
we  have  a  revelation  indeed.  But  if  God  himself  remains 
hidden,  then — no  matter  what  else  may  be  made  known — 
we  have  nothing  that  deserves  to  be  called  a  revelation. 
Let  it  be  supposed,  for  the  sake  of  illustration,  that  God 
has  miraculously  imparted  to  some  man  a  wealth  of  in¬ 
formation  concerning  Methuselah,  or  concerning  the  in¬ 
habitants  of  Mars,  or  has  indicated  to  him  the  exact  num¬ 
ber  of  the  stars,  or  has  shown  some  long-buried  chamber 
in  which  were  to  be  found  the  lost  dramas  of  .<®schylus 
and  Sophocles,  would  such  “revelations”  be — REVELA¬ 
TION?  Unless,  beside  all  that,  God  has  also  disclosed 
himself,  then  man  is  in  the  same  spiritual  darkness  as 
before. 

God  is  not  naturally  known  to  man,  is  not  an  object  to 
be  discovered,  handled  and  examined  by  our  scientific 
processes.  God  is  known  only  as  he  gives  himself  to  be 
known  by  coming  into  personal  self-revealing  relations 
with  men.  Not  that  God  forces  the  knowledge  of  him¬ 
self  upon  men.  We  on  our  part  must  look,  if  we  would 
see;  we  must  seek  God,  if  we  would  find  him.  But  we 
should  not  be  seeking  him  at  all,  if  he  had  not  somehow 
already  touched  us  and  stirred  us  up  to  seek  him.  More¬ 
over,  all  our  seeking  would  be  forever  futile,  if  God  did 
not  more  and  more  disclose  himself  to  us  as  we  follow  on 
to  know  him. 

The  theme  “Bible  and  Revelation”  presents  two  funda¬ 
mental  questions:  (1)  Has  God  revealed  himself?  and, 
if  he  has  revealed  himself,  (2)  What  is  the  relation  of 
the  Bible  to  the  revelation  that  he  has  made?  Or  the 
whole  main  issue  may  be  stated  in  one  simple  question*. 
Does  the  Bible  truly  show  us  God? 


THE  BIBLE  AND  REVELATION 


307 


It  is  not  within  the  scope  of  our  present  study  to  enter 
into  a  detailed  examination  of  the  proofs  of  a  divine 
revelation.  What  is  here  offered  presupposes  both  the 
possibility  and  the  fact  of  a  self-revelation  of  God  to 
men  and  is  especially  designed  to  point  out  the  relation 
of  the  Bible  to  the  revelation  which  the  Christian  church 
claims  to  possess. 

It  is  the  firm  persuasion  of  Christian  believers  that  God 
has  indeed  revealed  himself.  He  has  revealed  himself  in 
nature,  but  in  nature  he  does  not  reveal  himself  as  moral 
Ruler,  much  less  as  loving  Father.  God  has  revealed 
himself  in  history;  here  as  moral  Governor,  as  the  “Power 
not  ourselves  making  for  righteousness.”  But  God  has 
also  revealed  himself  in  the  hearts  of  men,  giving  them 
his  Spirit.  If  this  direct  gift  of  personal  fellowship  were 
no  reality,  then  neither  history  nor  nature  would  afford 
any  real  revelation  at  all.  He  who  thinks  he  sees  God 
in  nature,  but  not  in  history  nor  in  the  inner  self,  has  not 
known  him.  On  the  other  hand,  he  who  fancies  that  he 
finds  God  in  his  heart,  but  can  find  no  trace  of  him  in 
nature  and  especially  in  history,  cannot  be  sure  he  is  not 
the  victim  of  an  illusion. 

The  Biblical  revelation  is,  above  all,  historical.  Always 
God  has  been  working  out  his  purpose  among  men. 
Prophetic  souls,  men  to  whom  God  gave  a  larger  measure 
of  his  Spirit,  were  his  interpreters.  At  length  he  sent 
into  the  world  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  the  supreme  Prophet, 
but  also  much  more  than  that.  He  was  in  his  own  person 
the  supreme  revelation  of  God.  Henceforth  those  who 
really  know  Jesus  Christ  and  are  overmastered  by  the 
conviction  that  he  knew  the  Father,  both  believe  and  knovr 
“the  Christlike  God.”  Jesus  knows  God  and  teaches  us 
to  know  him. 


308  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Three  broad,  fundamental  thoughts  regarding  revela¬ 
tion  are  involved  in  the  Christian  view.  (1)  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  supreme  revelation  of  God.  (2)  Revelation 
was  progressive  from  the  beginning  until  Christ.  (3) 
Revelation  is  an  affair  of  the  present  as  truly  as  of  the 
past. 

Jesus  reveals  the  Father,  and  that  suffices.  And  yet 
he  did  not  come  to  bring  the  first  knowledge  of  God.  He 
came  not  as  innovator  but  as  fulfiller.  Those  who  believe 
in  him  are  sure  that  in  the  glory  of  God  that  shines  in  the 
face  of  Jesus  Christ  there  is  no  darkness  at  all.  But  the 
assurance  that  Jesus  brought  the  full  personal  revelation 
of  the  Father  does  not  imply  that  revelation  ceases  with 
the  historical  Christ.  Each  real  believer  throughout  the 
ages  finds  anew  the  revelation  of  the  Father  in  Jesus 
Christ.  Moreover,  the  understanding  of  the  mind  of 
Christ  may  and  should  increase  and  broaden  through 
the  ages.  Yet  in  all  this  we  are  only  increasingly  appro¬ 
priating  the  truth  that  Jesus  brought  to  light. 

The  Christian  faith  does  not  imply  that  God  has 
revealed  himself  only  in  the  events  recorded  in  the  Bible. 
It  appears  rather  that  God  has  nowhere  '‘left  himself 
without  witness.”  But  Christianity  does  hold  that  in 
Jesus  Christ  God  is  revealed  with  an  all-sufficient  clear¬ 
ness  and  fulness,  that  in  him  are  summed  up  all  the 
“broken  lights”  of  men’s  knowledge  of  God. 

Two  propositions  may  fairly  express  the  fundamental 
relation  of  the  Bible  to  the  Christian  revelation.  (1)  The 
Bible  is  the  witness  to  a  progressive  revelation  that  finds 
its  perfect  consummation  in  Jesus  Christ.  (2)  The 
Biblical  testimony  is  then  in  turn  the  effectual  means  of 
bringing  the  reader  or  hearer  to  the  place  where  he  too 
may  gain  the  same  knowledge  of  God  as  the  writers 


THE  BIBLE  AND  REVELATION 


309 


possessed.  In  other  words,  the  Bible  issued  from  revela¬ 
tion  and  it  leads  to  revelation.  The  Bible  is  not  itself  the 
revelation,  but  is  the  witness  to  the  revelation.  It  is  God 
that  is  revealed. 

Not  every  utterance  of  the  Bible  has  to  do  with  revela¬ 
tion.  The  Bible  contains  numberless  references  to  mat¬ 
ters  open  to  common  observation  or  inquiry.  It  brings 
only  confusion  to  speak  of  such  things  as  “revealed.” 

The  Christian  standpoint  is  simply  this :  the  message 
of  the  Bible  is  based  upon  the  knowledge  of  God.  In  its 
quintessence  the  Bible  is  not  the  record  of  man’s  ideas 
and  experiences  in  his  search  after  God,  but  rather  God’s 
disclosure  of  himself  in  and  through  the  experiences  of 
men.  True  enough,  men  made  the  record;  and  yet  the 
Bible  is  not  a  mere  record  of  a  human  adventure  but 
rather  a  record  of  God’s  progressive  self-revelation. 
Take  the  Bible  as  a  whole — above  all  take  the  Christ  of 
the  Bible — and  it  is  impossible  to  deny  that  in  it  and  back 
of  it  lies  the  sure  knowledge  of  God. 

Is  the  Bible,  then,  altogether  true?  We  must  unlearn 
the  tendency  to  vain  quibbling  over  matters  that  can  have 
no  significance  for  faith.  If  the  Bible’s  message  is  true, 
then  the  Bible  is  true.  More  specifically,  if  the  Christ 
of  the  Bible  is  true,  then  the  Bible  is  true.  If  we  unlearn 
the  old  disposition  to  seek  for  signs  and  wonders  in  the 
structure  of  the  Bible,  and  learn  to  read  it  with  the  sole 
aim  of  understanding  God’s  workings,  we  shall  not  be 
disappointed.  Prophets,  psalmists,  apostles  knew  God. 
Above  all,  Jesus  knew  God,  and  he  can  teach  us  to  know 
him. 


Chapter  XXI 


THE  BIBLE  AND  INSPIRATION 

To  those  who  recognize  in  the  Bible  the  witness  to 
the  supreme  self-revelation  of  God  the  question  naturally 
arises :  Is  not  then  the  writing  itself  divinely  given  or 
controlled?  Must  not  the  God  who  gave  the  revelation 
have  also  provided  for  it  a  perfect  and  superhuman  ex¬ 
pression  in  language?  And  indeed  it  is  the  universal 
belief  of  the  Christian  church  that  in  some  way  the  Bible 
is  the  gift  of  God,  that  its  writers  somehow  wrote  “as 
they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit.”  The  nature  of 
that  inspiration  we  are  to  consider  briefly. 

The  use  of  the  term  “inspiration”  has  long  been  un¬ 
settled.  In  its  broadest  sense  inspiration  means  an  “in¬ 
breathing”  of  the  Divine  Spirit  into  man.  In  this  sense 
all  fellowship  with  God  is  inspiration.  But  the  term  is 
most  commonly  used  to  indicate  specifically  the  divine 
origin  of  the  Scriptures.  Ordinarily  when  one  says,  “I 
believe  the  Bible  is  inspired,”  the  hearer  will  probably 
take  him  to  mean  that  he  believes  that  somehow  God 
caused  the  words  to  be  written  just  as  they  stand.  In 
dealing  with  the  subject  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  it 
is  very  important  that  we  distinguish  carefully  between 
what  the  word  inspiration  might  mean  and  what  sense  it 
actually  bore  as  used  by  this  or  that  thinker  in  the  course 
of  church  history.  For  the  understanding  of  the  term 
has  been  extremely  varied. 


310 


THE  BIBLE  AND  INSPIRATION 


311 


In  general  it  may  be  asserted  that  the  Christian  church 
is  well  persuaded  (1)  that  God  and  not  man  is  the 
ultimate  source  of  the  Christian  message;  and  (2)  that 
God  enabled  his  witnesses  to  deliver  their  message  with 
adequate  clearness  and  force.  But  this  is  a  pretty  broad 
statement.  Multitudes  of  Christians  would  not  be  content 
without  the  fullest  assertion  of  a  complete  and  exact  mi¬ 
raculous  suggestion  of  the  very  words  of  the  Bible.  Such 
an  extreme  position  is  natural  enough,  but  it  is  quite  un¬ 
necessary.  It  is  natural  because  those  who  believe  that 
God  gave  the  message,  can  so  easily  be  led  to  infer  that 
he  must  have  given  it  in  a  wholly  miraculous  manner. 
But  even  a  rather  superficial  examination  of  the  Bible 
shows  that  it  has  not  the  mechanical  perfection  once 
ascribed  to  it.  Our  second  better  thought,  however, 
assures  us  that  the  Bible  is  a  mightier  and  more  effective 
book  with  its  human  limitations  than  it  could  have  been, 
if  it  had  only  superhuman  qualities. 

The  older  views  of  inspiration  rest  upon  a  fundamental 
misconception  of  the  relation  between  the  Spirit  of  God 
and  the  spirit  of  man.  The  supernatural  agency  of  God 
was  separated  by  a  wide  gulf  from  the  natural  functions 
of  man.  If  then  God  inspired  men  to  write  or  speak, 
he  would  lift  them  out  of  their  human  plane  into  a  plane 
of  superhuman  freedom  from  error  of  every  sort.  In 
inspiration  God  would  suggest  the  very  words  to  be  used. 
The  Biblical  writers  were  often  called  “the  penmen  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.”  Sometimes  they  were  even  likened  to  the 
pen  in  the  hand  of  a  writer.  Thus  the  books  of  the  Bible 
were,  in  the  last  analysis,  God’s  writings  and  not  man’s. 
What  was  written  was  often  represented  as  being  in  part 
quite  beyond  the  grasp  even  of  the  writer  himself.  He 


312  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


wrote  not  from  his  own  experience  and  assurance;  he 
wrote  mechanically  what  he  was  bidden  to  write. 

Now  inspiration  so  conceived  is  not  real  inspiration  at 
all.  The  agent  is  depersonalized — is  turned  into  a  ma¬ 
chine.  But  genuine  inspiration  signifies  the  illumination 
and  exaltation  of  one’s  personality.  He  who  is  inspired 
is  thereby  rendered  not  less  but  rather  more  himself. 
Fellowship  with  God  sets  human  personality  free.  We 
are  made  for  fellowship  with  our  Creator,  and  this  fellow¬ 
ship  does  not  cancel  but  enhances  our  individuality  and 
personality. 

In  the  old  conception  of  inspiration  there  lies  a  further 
misconception.  It  is  false  to  regard  the  sphere  of  the 
natural  and  that  of  the  supernatural  as  separated  by  a 
gulf.  Natural  and  supernatural  constitute  one  system. 
Therefore,  the  marks  of  inspiration  could  never  be  found 
in  the  removal  of  the  human  factor  with  its  limitations, 
but  simply  in  the  presence  of  a  divine  element  of  light 
and  power.  The  Scriptures  constitute  a  ‘‘superhuman 
book”  only  in  the  sense  that  their  message  is  from  God 
and  not  from  man  apart  from  God.  In  every  other 
sense  the  Bible  is  human,  thoroughly  and  intensely  human. 
No  truer  characterization  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole  can  be 
given  than  this ;  The  Bible  is  the  witness  of  believing  men 
as  to  their  experience  of  God.  This  term  “witness”  goes 
to  the  heart  of  the  matter.  It  presupposes  the  Divine 
Reality,  for  this  is  that  to  which  witness  is  borne.  If 
the  Bible  were  merely  a  testimony  as  to  men’s  vain  seek¬ 
ing  after  God,  it  would  be  a  purely  human  book.  But 
since  it  is  the  testimony  of  men  to  whom  God  had  revealed 
himself,  we  rightly  acknowledge  their  message  as  the 
word  of  God. 

Evidently  inspiration  and  revelation  belong  together. 


THE  BIBLE  AND  INSPIRATION 


313 


An  inspiration  without  revelation  would  be  empty,  and 
a  revelation  without  inspiration  would  be  unthinkable. 

In  claiming  inspiration  for  the  Bible  we  have  no  reason 
to  assert  that  inspiration  is  confined  to  the  Bible.  When 
we  declare  that  the  Bible  is  inspired,  we  do  by  implication 
deny  that  anything  that  contradicts  its  message  is  of  God ; 
but  certainly  the  Christian  estimate  of  the  Bible  does  not 
involve  the  assertion  that  nothing  outside  the  Bible,  even 
though  perchance  bearing  the  same  message,  can  be  in¬ 
spired.  Surely  inspiration  has  been  continuous  in  the 
church.  For  wherever  the  Biblical  faith  is  a  reality,  there 
must  be  also  the  Biblical  inspiration,  else  the  word  would 
be  without  power  and  life.  But  this  continuous  inspira¬ 
tion  holds  us  fast  to  the  Biblical  Christ.  It  cannot  lead 
us  away  from  Christ,  but  must  ever  lead  us  to  him. 
Unless  we  have  something  of  inspiration  when  we  are 
reading  the  Bible  we  shall  not  be  able  to  understand  it 
spiritually. 

The  question  of  Biblical  inspiration  as  related  to  poet¬ 
ical  and  aesthetic  inspiration  is  often  raised.  Poets,  musi¬ 
cians,  painters  and  the  like  are  often  spoken  of  as  inspired. 
The  idea  is  a  very  natural  one,  and  there  is  a  sense  in 
which  it  is  to  be  accepted.  The  gifts  of  genius  are  from 
God,  and  all  insight  into  truth  and  beauty  comes  somehow 
from  our  Maker.  But  religious  inspiration  is  something 
other  than  the  inspiration  of  genius.  A  man  religiously 
inspired  utters  divine  truth  as  he  has  learned  it  through 
fellowship  with  the  living  God.  The  inspiration  of  genius 
is  possible  without  conscious  personal  communion  with 
God.  The  prophet,  however,  may  be  a  poet  too,  and  the 
poet  a  prophet.  ^Esthetic  gifts  and  religion  are  often 
joined  in  one  person,  but  they  are  not  the  same  thing. 
When  we  hear  people  say,  “The  Bible  is  inspired  because 


314  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


it  inspires  me,”  we  should  not  fail  to  recognize  how  vague 
the  statement  is.  If  our  meaning  were  only  that  the  Bible 
gives  us  aesthetic  inspiration,  surely  the  statement  would 
have  no  special  significance.  But  if  we  mean,  “I  know  the 
Bible  is  inspired,  because  it  brings  me  into  fellowship  with 
God,”  then  we  have  got  to  the  root  of  the  matter.  The 
claim  for  the  writers  of  the  Bible  is  not  that  they  had 
genius — though  some  of  them  surely  had  it — ^but  that  they 
wrote  out  of  their  communion  with  God. 

When  men  tell  us  that  there  is  inspiration  in  all  the 
world’s  “Bibles”  and  that  the  difference  is  only  one  of 
degree,  not  of  kind,  we  must  reply:  The  real  issue  does 
not  lie  at  this  point.  We  may  grant  that  in  all  of  the 
books  of  the  world’s  great  religions  there  may  be  truths 
which  could  only  come  from  God.  The  real  issue  respect¬ 
ing  the  claims  of  the  several  “Bibles”  does  not  appear 
when  we  ask:  Which  is  inspired  and  which  is  not?  The 
issue  is  brought  out  only  when  we  ask :  Where  is  the  way 
to  the  true  and  living  God  clearly  pointed  out?  Now, 
only  our  Bible  shows  the  true  God  so  clearly  that  men  may 
have  sure  and  satisfying  fellowship  with  Him.  This  our 
Bible  can  do,  and  does,  because  it  has  Christ.  We  pass  by 
all  quibbling  over  the  presence  or  absence  of  inspiration 
in  all  the  books  of  other  religions.  We  may  even  frankly 
grant  a  measure  of  inspiration  in  them  all.  Nevertheless, 
one  supreme  fact  stands  for  us  above  dispute :  only  our 
Bible  has  Jesus  Christ,  and  only  Jesus  Christ  shows  us 
the  Father. 

Thus  we  see  that  our  estimate  of  the  Bible  does  not 
stand  or  fall  with  any  theory  as  to  the  miraculous  origin 
of  the  writings.  We  do  not  need  a  doctrine  of  a  special 
or  exclusive  inspiration  for  our  Bible  in  order  to  esteem  it 
as  the  supreme  means  of  grace,  the  means  by  which  we 


THE  BIBLE  AND  INSPIRATION  316 

come  into  fellowship  with  the  living  God.  We  need  the 
testim,ony  of  those  who  have  found  the  treasure  of 
eternal  life,  in  order  that  we,  too,  may  go  and  find  it  for 
ourselves.  We  are  not  expected  to  be  Christians  of  a 
secondary  or  tertiary  rank.  We  are  to  know  for  our¬ 
selves.  This  knowledge,  to  be  sure,  we  obtain  through 
the  word  of  faithful  witnesses,  but  it  is  through  their 
word  only  as  it  is  attested  and  proved  true  in  our  own 
lives. 

The  claim  of  complete  inerrancy  in  the  Scriptures  is 
not  only  unnecessary,  but  even  injurious.  Men  do  not 
need  to  be  omniscient  in  order  to  be  true  and  adequate 
witnesses.  God  could  have  given  us  a  mechanically  flaw¬ 
less  book,  but  it  pleased  him  to  give  us  the  “treasure  in 
earthen  vessels” ;  and  doubtless  “the  excellency  of  the 
power”  is  far  more  clearly  manifest  in  a  Bible  that  is  a 
genuine  reflection  of  human  experience  than  it  could  have 
been  in  a  purely  superhuman  book.  It  is  hard  to  see  how 
a  purely  miraculous  book  could  have  penetrated  the  hearts 
of  men,  for  it  would  have  only  the  qualities  that  belong 
to  another  world.  There  are  in  the  Bible  discrepancies 
in  matters  of  history  and  the  like.  But  that  is  not  all. 
The  Bible  shows  also,  here  and  there,  moral  and  religious 
ideas  which  are  not  on  the  level  of  the  revelation  of  God 
in  Jesus  Christ.  To  teach  children  that  God  was  really 
well  pleased  with  all  that  the  ancient  Israelites  did  in  his 
name,  is  to  make  genuine  Christian  faith  hard  for  them. 
The  glory  of  the  Bible  is  not  in  a  flawless  superhuman 
structure,  but  in  its  power  to  bring  men  into  fellowship 
with  God 


Chapter  XXII 

WRITTEN  WORD  AND  LIVING  VOICE 

What  is  the  relation  between  the  written  word  and  the 
living  voice  of  the  gospel  in  the  church  to-day?  For 
Protestant  Christianity  the  Bible  is  the  rule  of  faith.  Itl 
sufficiency  and  finality  are  consistently  acknowledged. 
This  emphasis  upon  what  is  written  has  led  many  to 
infer  an  immeasurable  superiority  of  Scripture  over  the 
living  voice  of  the  gospel.  A  little  reflection,  however, 
must  show  that  it  is  quite  unnecessary  to  affirm  a  funda¬ 
mental  difference  here.  The  peculiar  significance  of  the 
written  as  related  to  the  spoken  word  lies  in  two  facts: 
the  Bible  testimony  is  primary,  and  it  is  unchangeable. 
The  written  word  alone  is  available  for  use  as  a  standard 
or  court  of  last  resort.  For  such  a  use  the  spoken  word 
is  too  fleeting,  too  unstable.  Yet  the  church,  in  all  its 
branches  and  in  every  age,  has  used,  as  the  chief  and 
direct  means  of  propagating  its  principles,  the  spoken 
word.  Besides  this,  she  has  constantly  used  other  Chris¬ 
tian  writings  of  many  sorts  along  with  the  Bible.  The 
church  has  never  attempted  to  evangelize  the  world  or 
instruct  and  edify  believers  by  merely  putting  the  written 
testimony  of  the  primitive  church  into  the  hands  of  un¬ 
believers,  while  living  Christians  kept  silence.  The  Chris¬ 
tian  faith  is  a  living  and  present  thing.  Its  object  is  the 
living  God,  and  the  living  witnesses  of  the  faith  con¬ 
tinue  to  cry,  ‘‘Come  and  see.” 

But  not  all  words  spoken  in  the  name  of  the  Christian 

316 


WRITTEN  WORD  AND  LIVING  VOICE  317 


faith  are  genuinely  Christian.  Only  the  word  that  ac¬ 
quaints  men  with  God  as  revealed  in  Jesus  Christ  is  purely 
Christian.  This  was  the  substance  of  primitive  Christian 
preaching,  and  it  is  the  substance  of  genuine  Christian 
preaching  to-day.  But  the  preaching  of  each  age  and  of 
each  individual  has  its  peculiar  characteristics.  The  ex¬ 
pression  of  the  same  fundamental  reality  is  illimitable  in 
variety.  No  believer,  not  even  an  apostle,  has  exhausted 
the  truth  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  as  ages  come  and  go, 
the  church  meets  new  problems  and  is  destined  to  receive 
deeper  insight  into  the  meaning  of  the  gospel  for  human 
life.  The  essential  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  must  be  given 
to  each  age  in  the  language  and  modes  of  thought  that 
belong  to  that  age.  The  spoken  word  in  each  age  may 
be  as  genuine  and  purely  Christian  as  the  primitive  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  apostles.  But  this  is  possible  only  as  men 
hold  fast  the  revelation  in  the  Biblical  Christ.  Yet  we 
are  not  bound  to  the  letter  of  Scripture,  but  only  to  the 
reality  of  Christ  as  the  revealer  of  the  living  God.  The 
problem  for  the  church  in  every  age,  and  for  each  indi¬ 
vidual  teacher  or  preacher  of  the  gospel,  is  to  hold  firmly 
the  essence  of  the  historical  revelation,  and  to  interpret 
its  meaning  for  each  time  and  occasion  as  it  comes. 

The  Christian  faith  lives  and  grows  because  its  Divine 
Object  is  living.  It  is  impossible  that  faith  should  have 
anything  else  for  its  object  than  a  living  person.  Jesus 
Christ  himself  is  the  living  Word  of  God.  In  his  own 
person  he  expresses  what  God  is  in  his  relation  to  men. 
Now  human  words  may  be  mere  words;  God’s  word  is 
reality,  actuality.  That  which  makes  scripture  Holy 
Scripture  is  that  it  directly  or  indirectly  preaches  the 
living  God  and  the  Christ. 

Jesus  himself  taught  the  true  nature  and  function  of 


318  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Scripture  when  he  said  to  the  Jews:  “Ye  search  the  scrip¬ 
tures,  because  ye  think  that  in  them  ye  have  eternal  life, 
and  they  are  they  that  testify  of  me;  but  ye  will  not  come 
to  me  that  ye  might  have  life.”  The  Bible  is  a  means  of 
grace,  not  an  end  in  itself.  The  church  holds  forth  the 
word  of  life,  but  it  is  only  in  order  to  point  to  Christ. 
She  cherishes  the  Bible,  not  as  having  a  value  apart  from 
God,  but  as  showing  the  way  to  God.  The  whole  truth 
of  the  matter  is  finely  summed  up  in  a  hymn  by  Bishop 
.W.  W.  How,  a  part  of  which  we  quote. 

O  Word  of  God  incarnate, 

O  Wisdom  from  on  high 

O  Truth  unchanged,  unchanging. 

O  Light  of  our  dark  sky : 

We  praise  Thee  for  the  radiance 
That  from  the  hallowed  page, 

A  lantern  to  our  footsteps. 

Shines  on  from  age  to  age. 

The  Church  from  Thee,  her  Master, 

Received  the  gift  divine ; 

And  still  that  light  she  lifteth 
O’er  all  the  earth  to  shine. 

It  is  the  golden  casket 

Where  gems  of  truth  are  stored; 

It  is  the  heaven-drawn  picture 
Of  Thee,  the  living  Word. 

It  floateth  like  a  banner 

Before  God’s  hosts  unfurled ; 

It  shineth  like  a  beacon 
Above  the  darkling  world; 

It  is  the  chart  and  compass 
That  o’er  life’s  surging  sea 

*Mid  mists  and  rocks  and  quicksands, 

Still  guides,  O  Christ,  to  Thee. 


WRITTEN  WORD  AND  LIVING  VOICE  319 


But  there  are  many  thinkers  who,  while  recognizing 
that  the  divine  light  shines  for  us  in  the  Bible,  yet  refuse 
to  acknowledge  its  finality.  A  classical  example  of  this 
view  are  the  lines  of  Lowell : 

Slowly  the  Bible  of  the  race  is  writ 

And  not  on  paper  leaves  nor  leaves  of  stone; 

Each  age,  each  kindred,  adds  to  it. 

Texts  of  despair  or  hope,  of  joy  or  moan. 

While  swings  the  sea,  while  mists  the 
mountains  shroud, 

While  thunder’s  surges  burst  on  cliffs 
of  cloud. 

Still  at  the  prophets’  feet  the  nations  sit. 

Others,  too,  have  proposed  an  enlargement  of  the  idea 
of  a  Bible  for  mankind.  H.  G.  Wells,  for  example,  pro¬ 
poses  a  Bible  of  civilization,  an  anthology  of  the  most 
inspiring  books  from  all  human  sources.  That  there  is 
a  large  element  of  truth  in  the  thought  of  Lowell  and 
in  that  of  Wells  cannot  be  denied.  There  are  immensely 
important  and  helpful  writings  for  the  spiritual  life  of 
man  outside  of  the  Bible.  But  such  critics  seem  to 
overlook  a  matter  of  fundamental  significance.  The 
supremacy  of  the  Bible  in  the  world’s  literature  does  not 
imply  any  exclusion  from  our  thought  of  any  book  that 
has  truth  and  power.  Its  supremacy  still  lies  in  this :  that 
it  alone  affords  full  and  clear  knowledge  of  the  Christ. 
No  speculation  and  no  superhistorical  inspiration  can  be 
a  substitute  for  the  knowledge  of  the  historic  Christ.  If 
he  be  lifted  up,  he  will  draw  all  men  unto  himself;  and 
he  is  lifted  up  in  the  Scriptures  that  center  in  him.  The 
church  is  a  living  organism  whose  duty  it  is  to  interpret 
its  Christ,  “who  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  yea,  and 
forever.”  If  the  church  should  confine  herself  to  the 


320  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


recitation  of  the  New  Testament,  she  would  be  denying 
the  faith  in  the  living  Lord  who  operates  to-day  through 
his  Spirit.  Christianity,  therefore,  unites,  as  no  other  reli¬ 
gion  does,  the  origins  and  the  present  life  of  faith;  and, 
moreover,  the  church  looks  forward  to  the  consummation 
of  all  things  in  Christ.  Other  religions  are  chained  to  a 
dead  past  or  they  merely  drift.  Christianity  has  in  itself 
the  principle  of  progress  and  freedom,  because  it  is  the 
religion  of  the  Spirit — the  Spirit  that  was  given  by  Christ 
and  that  breathes  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 


PART  V:  THE  BIBLE  IN  THE  WORLD 


PART  V:  THE  BIBLE  IN  THE 

WORLD 


Chapter  XXIII 

THE  BIBLE  THE  BOOK  OF  MANKIND 

The  celebration  of  the  hundredth  anniversary  of  the 
founding  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  oc¬ 
curred  in  1904.  The  centenary  of  the  American  Bible 
Society  was  celebrated  in  1916.  In  connection  with  these 
events  a  wealth  of  literature  appeared  bearing  upon  the 
history  of  the  Bible  among  the  nations.  Among  the 
writings  called  forth  by  the  centenary  of  the  British  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society,  special  mention  may  be  made  of 
William  Canton’s  “The  Bible  and  the  Anglo-Saxon  Peo¬ 
ple.”  Another  is  an  essay  by  the  late  Martin  Kaehler  in 
Halle  on  the  theme,  “The  Book  of  Mankind”  (Das  Buch 
der  Menschheit).  This  essay  was  frankly  taken  by  Dr. 
Warfield  of  Princeton  as  the  basis  of  a  paper  read  at  the 
World’s  Bible  Congress  at  the  Panama-Pacific  Exposition 
in  San  Francisco  in  1915,  and  afterwards  (1916)  pub¬ 
lished  by  the  American  Bible  Society  as  the  first  of  its 
Centennial  Pamphlets.  The  paper  is  entitled :  “The  Bible 
the  Book  of  Mankind.”  Kaehler  had  made  a  twofold 
division  of  his  essay:  “1.  The  Bible  is  becoming  the  book 
of  mankind.  2.  The  Bible  is  becoming  the  book  of  man¬ 
kind,  because  it  is  the  book  of  mankind.” 

If  one  inquires  concerning  the  extent  of  the  spread  of 
the  Bible  among  the  nations,  it  is  impossible  to  give  a 

323 


324  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


report  that  is  not  in  a  measure  already  antiquated  before 
it  falls  under  the  eye  of  the  reader.  At  its  centenary  in 
1904  the  greatest  of  the  world’s  Bible  societies  (the 
British  and  Foreign)  could  announce  that  it  alone  fur¬ 
nished  the  Bible — either  the  whole  or  portions  of  it — in 
370  languages  and  dialects.  Versions  represented  by  other 
Bible  societies  in  various  countries  brought  the  total  to 
nearly  500.  In  a  recent  issue  of  The  Bible  in  the  Worlds 
the  organ  of  the  British  Society,  the  question  as  to  the 
number  of  languages  and  issues  of  the  Bible  is  answered 
(revised  for  year  1923). 

“The  question  is  often  asked,  ‘Into  how  many  lan¬ 
guages  and  dialects  has  the  Bible  been  translated  and 
published?’  In  order  to  arrive  at  an  answer  which  shall 
be  approximately  accurate,  we  will  limit  ourselves  to 
printed  editions  which  contain,  as  a  rule,  at  least  one 
complete  book  of  Scripture.  Moreover,  we  must  solve 
the  standing  problem,  ‘When  is  a  dialect  not  a  dialect?’ 
by  assuming  that  two  kindred  forms  of  speech  are  suffi¬ 
ciently  unlike  to  be  classed  separately  when  Christian 
missionaries  find  it  necessary  for  their  purpose  to  make 
a  distinct  version  of  the  gospel  in  each  of  the  two  forms. 

“The  Bible  House  to-day  contains  records  of  editions  of 
the  Scriptures  in  about  785  languages  and  dialects.  This 
total,  however,  includes  (1)  a  few  obsolete  languages 
which  are  represented  only  by  printed  texts  of  early 
manuscript  translations,  and  also  (2)  as  many  as  sixty- 
five  modern  dialects  in  which  versions  have  been  pub¬ 
lished  merely  for  philological  purposes.  When  we  deduct 
these,  there  remain  about  700  languages  and  dialects  in 
which  at  least  one  complete  book  of  Scripture  has  been 
printed  for  religious  use.  This  total  includes  the  com¬ 
plete  Bible  in  about  140  different  forms  of  speech.” 


THE  BIBLE  THE  BOOK  OF  MANKIND  326 

As  to  the  number  of  Bibles,  Testaments  and  portions 
circulated  throughout  the  world,  complete  statistics  are, 
of  course,  impossible.  The  regular  Bible  societies  keep 
a  careful  record,  but  the  many  great  houses  whose  Bibles 
are  on  a  commercial  basis  publish  no  statistics  of  sales. 
Shortly  before  the  war,  careful  computations  showed  that 
the  annual  output  of  Bibles  and  portions  of  the  Bible  was 
at  least  30,000,000,  and  now  again  it  stands  at  about 
the  same  figure.  Following  are  the  statistics  of  the 
three  largest  distributors  of  Bibles  for  the  year  1917. 
The  Bible  societies  represented  are  the  British  and  For¬ 
eign,  the  American,  and  the  National  Bible  Society  of 
Scotland. 

Total 

Bibles  Testes  Portions  Issues 

B.  F.  B.  S .  837,168  1,903,315  6,798,752  9,539,235 

A.  B.  S .  244,515  1,156,385  3,417,664  4,818,564 

N.  B.  S.  S .  49,095  304,048  3,385,270  3,738,413 


Totals . 1,130,778  3,363,748  13,601,686.18,096,212 

It  will  be  of  interest  to  many  to  have  the  complete 
statistics  of  these  societies  up  to  the  end  of  1917: 

Tests  and 

Years  Bibles  Portions  Total  Issues 
B.  F.  B.  S..  1807-1917  60,767,274  223,397,079  284,164,353 

A.  B.  S . 1816-1917  24,359,006  103,751,917  128,110,923 

N.  B.  S'.  S..  1861-1917  7,175,045  51,665,708  58,840,753 


Totals . 92,301,325  378,814,704  471,116,029 

Aside  from  a  number  of  minor  societies  that  are  in 
affiliation  with  the  larger  ones,  there  are  twenty-one  gen¬ 
eral  Bible  societies  in  the  Protestant  world.  The  desip^n 


326  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


of  all  alike  is  to  further  the  distribution  of  the  Scriptures 
without  pecuniary  profit.  Indeed,  a  large  part  of  their 
output  is  distributed  gratis.  At  least  thirteen  of  these 
societies  were  founded  in  the  years  between  1804  and 
1818..  The  Bible  Society  of  Belgium  was  founded  as  late 
as  1909.  The  American  Bible  Society  in  its  report  for 
1921  gave  the  latest  available  statistics  of  the  output  of 
all  the  twenty-one  societies — for  the  year  1920  where 
possible.  The  total  circulation  for  one  year  as  thus 
reported  was  more  than  16,000,000  copies  of  the  Bible 
or  portions  of  it.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  there 
are  also  scores  of  houses  publishing  Bibles  on  a  purely 
commercial  basis. 

But  the  Bible  is  not  merely  translated  into  so  very  many 
languages;  it  has  also  been  made  the  people’s  book  in 
every  land  where  Christianity  or,  at  least,  Protestantism 
has  prevailed.  Even  before  the  time  of  Christ  the  Old 
Testament  became  an  active  influence  in  large  circles  of 
Gentiles  through  the  Septuagint  version.  But  it  was  not 
possible  for  it  to  become  a  world  book  without  the  New 
Testament,  for  only  the  New  Testament  has  a  purely 
universal  message.  Only  when  taken  up  into  that  Evangel 
which  was  “to  course  and  range  through  all  the  world” 
could  the  Old  Testament  become  a  portion  of  the  book 
of  mankind.  The  Old  Testament  has  been  universalized 
only  as  Christianity  put  into  the  background  the  tempo¬ 
rary  and  merely  national  aspects  of  it  and  has  read  the 
whole  in  the  light  of  its  fulfillment  and  spiritualization 
in  Christ.  Thus  the  Old  Testament,  read  in  the  light  of 
the  New,  has  become  a  power  in  the  world  that  it  never 
was  in  the  time  before  Christ. 

When  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  began  to  be  preached, 
Greek  was  the  almost  universal  language  of  the  civilized 


THE  BIBLE  THE  BOOK  OF  MANKIND  327 


world.  The  oldest  extant  Christian  scriptures  were 
written  in  Greek.  As  the  gospel  was  carried  from  land 
to  land  and  penetrated  every  stratum  of  society,  its  litera¬ 
ture  began  to  be  the  book  of  the  nations.  Wherever  the 
gospel  went,  the  book  was  carried,  and  it  went  as  the 
people’s  book.  Where  Greek  was  not  the  language  of 
the  people,  the  New  Testament,  and  sometimes  the  Old, 
appeared  also  in  vernacular  versions.  The  West  had  its 
Latin  Bible,  though  in  Rome  itself  for  some  centuries  the 
Christian  circles  chiefly  used  Greek.  In  the  East  we  find 
the  Syriac  Bible,  in  the  South  the  Coptic  version.  In  the 
North,  in  the  course  of  time,  Ulfilas  gave  the  people  of 
his  tongue  the  Gothic  version.  In  short,  the  Bible  w^as 
never  the  clergy’s  book  alone,  but  the  people’s  book.  In 
our  day  the  Bible  may  be  read  by  more  than  three- fourths 
of  the  human  family  in  their  own  tongue. 

Manifestly  it  would  not  be  enough  that  the  Bible  has 
become  a  book  of  many  peoples,  if  it  did  not  everywhere 
become  also  the  book  of  the  people.  Of  course  the  Bible 
could  become  the  book  of  the  people  generally  only  as  it 
was  first  the  book  of  the  people  in  the  church.  In  the 
earliest  Christian  centuries  the  Bible  w'as  the  individual 
Christian’s  book  quite  as  much  as  it  was  the  book  of  the 
organized  church.  Bible  reading  was  everywhere  recom¬ 
mended.  “The  deepest  and  ultimate  reason  why  every 
Christian  should  read  the  Bible  lies  in  this,  that,  just  as 
everyone  should  speak  to  God  as  often  as  possible,  so  also 
everyone  should  listen  to  God  as  often  as  possible.  Oratio 
and  lectio  belong  together;  so  wt  read  in  countless  pas¬ 
sages  from  the  later  Fathers,  but  Cyprian  had  already 
said  it  quite  clearly.  He  wrote  to  Donatus  :  ‘Be  assiduous 
in  both  prayer  and  reading;  in  the  one  you  speak  to  God, 
in  the  other  God  speaks  to  you.’  ” 


328  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


The  early  conquests  of  the  Bible  were,  however,  not 
consistently  pushed  forward  to  the  end.  The  Middle 
Ages  were  characterized  by  an  exaltation  of  ecclesiastical 
tradition  at  the  expense  of  the  Bible.  Besides  this,  there 
came  the  long-enduring  and  growing  cleft  between  church 
and  people — a  Latin  church  and  an  ever-increasingly 
non-Latin  people.  And  the  church,  with  new  and  selfish 
interests,  came  to  think  that  the  people  could  not  be 
trusted  with  the  Scriptures.  The  foolish  and  unbelieving 
notion  actually  prevailed  in  ecclesiastical  circles  that  the 
uncouth  language  of  the  people  could  not  express  the 
sacred  contents  of  the  gospel. 

The  art  of  printing  was  introduced  about  the  middle 
of  the  fifteenth  century.  The  first  entire  book  to  be 
printed  was  a  Latin  Bible  (known  as  Cardinal  Mazarin’s 
Bible).  W.  A.  Copinger  catalogues  144  editions  of  the 
Latin  Bible  for  the  first  half-century  of  printing,  and  for 
the  sixteenth  century  no  fewer  than  438.  In  the  period 
before  the  invention  of  printing  a  country  priest  could 
hardly  afford  a  Bible.  The  size  of  the  mediaeval  Bibles 
was  immense,  literally  deserving  the  name  which  they 
were  known  by — Bibliotheca.  They  consisted  ordinarily 
of  four  or  five — in  one  instance  of  fourteen — large  folio 
volumes.  The  price  would  range  from  about  $75  for  the 
plainest  to  $2,000  for  the  finest  copies.  The  introduction 
of  printing  happily  brought  the  Bible  within  the  reach  of 
all  but  the  really  poor. 

It  was  the  Reformation  which  restored  the  Bible  to  its 
rightful  place  in  the  church  and  among  the  people.  It 
became  the  people’s  book  in  every  country  where  the 
Reformation  really  prevailed.  What  the  Bible  in  the 
vernacular  has  meant  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  people  can 
never  be  told.  In  Germany,  Holland,  Switzerland  and 


THE  BIBLE  THE  BOOK  OF  MANKIND  329 

the  Scandinavian  countries  the  Bible  became  almost  as 
much  the  people’s  book  as  it  did  in  England.  “The  Ger* 
man  language  is  moulded  by  this  Bible  (Luther’s).  .  .  . 
In  Luther’s  time  the  dialects  still  prevailed.  ...  It  is 
unquestionably  due  to  Luther’s  Bible  that  the  Germans 
have  one  language  for  all  literary  purposes”  (E.  von 
Dobschutz). 

But  the  most  marvelous  triumph  of  the  Bible  is  not  its 
mere  translation  into  the  language  of  all  sorts  of  races, 
but  the  way  in  which  it  has  come  to  seem  to  be  native  in 
each  race.  Thus  it  has  become  the  greatest  unifying  force 
in  the  world,  for  it  binds  all  Christians  together  as  the 
people  of  the  Book.  As  the  Bible  becomes  the  book  of 
people  after  people,  it  assimilates  them  to  one  another  in 
modes  of  thought,  expression  and  feeling.  The  mission¬ 
ary  has  often  felt  the  difficulty  of  translation  into  the 
language  of  a  pagan  people  to  be  enormous.  Yet  the 
difficulty  is  never  insurmountable.  In  the  end  the  Bible 
lifts  up  and  glorifies  every  language.  “The  Malay  is  the 
most  eloquent  language  in  the  world,”  said  an  inhabitant 
of  the  Archipelago;  “look  at  our  translation  of  the  Bible.” 
“White  people  have  many  advantages,”  said  a  Zulu — 
“railways,  telegraphs,  breech-loaders;  they  are  skillful, 
they  are  rich,  they  are  well  dressed;  but  there  is  one  ad¬ 
vantage  which  they  have  not,  and  we  have — the  Gospels 
in  Zulu.” 

Now,  the  Bible  could  not  thus  becomCe  the  book  of 
mankind  unless  in  its  very  nature  there  were  inherent  in 
it  something  essentially  universal.  It  becomes  the  book 
of  mankind  in  fact,  because  it  is  the  book  of  mankind 
in  spirit.  No  other  ancient  book  shows  such  a  view  of 
the  unity  and  common  destiny  of  the  race.  Even  the  Old 
Testament,  in  spite  of  the  narrow  nationalism  that  it 


BBO  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


often  manifests,  clearly  recognizes  the  one  universal  God 
and  the  universality  of  his  purpose.  It  affords  us  a  clear 
insight  into  the  struggle  between  the  particularism  of  the 
mass  of  the  people  of  Israel  and  the  universalism  of  the 
great  prophets.  The  nature  of  that  conflict  can  be  appre¬ 
ciated  if  we  compare  the  spirit  of  Deutero-Isaiah,  Jonah, 
and  other  like  utterances  with  the  intense  nationalism  of 
the  Book  of  Esther.  The  New  Testament  is  the  grandest 
possible  testimony  to  the  power  of  the  faith  that  takes  in 
all  mankind  as  over  against  the  selfishness  of  the  hus¬ 
bandmen  who  were  ready  to  kill  the  prophets,  and  even 
the  Son,  in  order  that  the  inheritance  might  be  theirs. 


Chapter  XXIV 

THE  BIBLE  AND  CIVILIZATION 

Mankind  has  achieved  much  that  is  great  and  wonder^ 
ful  in  the  struggle  for  knowledge  and  power.  And  yet 
the  course  of  human  history  is  strewn  with  the  wrecks 
of  nations  and  civilizations.  In  many  ways  glorious 
progress  has  been  made,  but  there  have  also  been  many 
fearful  lapses.  Progress  is  not  an  unconditional  neces¬ 
sity,  and  we  do  not  see  the  '‘steady  gain  of  man.”  The 
fond  optimism  that  fancies  it  sees  in  human  history  noth¬ 
ing  but  steady  progress  cannot  maintain  itself.  And  at 
present  men  generally  recognize  that  not  always  and 
everywhere  does  man  show  progress.  Still  we  have  a 
right  to  our  confidence  that  God  is  working  out  his  pur¬ 
pose  for  the  human  race.  The  fearful  declines  of  various 
civilizations  may  even  help  to  show  the  way  of  real 
progress,  in  so  far  as  these  catastrophes  show  that  only 
the  civilization  that  is  rooted  and  grounded  in  the  eternal 
truth  can  withstand  the  strains  and  shocks  that  come  to 
all.  For  God  shakes  from  time  to  time  the  things  that 
are,  in  order  that  the  things  that  cannot  be  shaken  may 
remain.  It  is  an  historical  fact  of  stupendous  import 
that  when  the  ancient  civilizations  suffered  some  over¬ 
whelming  catastrophe,  they  showed  no  power  of  recovery, 
while  the  great  upheavals  within  the  bounds  of  Christen¬ 
dom  have  never  yet  broken  the  power  of  Christian  civili¬ 
zation.  The  fall  of  the  Western  Roman  Empire  revealed 
the  impotency  of  heathen  culture,  but  the  forces  of  Chris- 

331 


332  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


tianity  were  not  overcome  by  the  inroads  of  barbarism. 
The  recent  World  War  has  brought  a  fearful  disorgani¬ 
zation  of  public  morals,  so  that  a  vast  lawlessness  displays 
itself  in  many  quarters;  and  yet  we  have  no  cause  to  fear 
that  the  fundamental  principles  of  Christian  civilization 
will  yield  to  the  spirit  of  Antichrist.  Even  though  the 
world-spirit  should  seem  for  a  time  to  conquer,  we  may 
be  sure  that  the  spirit  of  Christian  faith  and  life  will 
reassert  itself  in  undiminished  power.  Some  of  the 
historic  forms  of  ecclesiastical  life  may  be  broken,  and 
some  of  the  institutions  which  men  have  called  Christian 
may  yet  be  set  aside.  This,  however,  does  not  mean  that 
Christianity  is  in  danger  of  overthrow.  The  life  that  is 
produced  by  the  teaching  and  the  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ 
cannot  but  survive  and  grow.  Since  Christianity  must 
work  out  its  heavenly  vocation  in  the  world,  it  inevitably 
assumes  forms  and  organizations  which  are  outward  and 
temporal.  The  vital  spirit  of  the  church  strives  to  con¬ 
trol  these  forms  and  make  them  subject  to  itself,  yet  the 
church  as  a  visible  institution  in  the  world  ever  feels  the 
pressure  of  the  world  striving  to  control  its  life.  There 
is  in  the  church  the  struggle  between  the  spiritual  and  the 
secular  elements,  just  as  in  the  individual  there  is  a  strug¬ 
gle  between  the  spirit  and  the  body — the  spirit  striving 
after  the  eternal  and  heavenly,  the  body  tending  to  con¬ 
form  itself  to  the  present  world.  If,  then,  the  organized 
church  seems  sometimes  to  suppress  the  truth  and  to 
hinder  progress,  this  cannot  be  laid  to  the  charge  of  the 
spirit  of  Christianity  and  the  Bible.  The  free  spirit  of 
truth  in  the  Bible  is  the  very  principle  of  progress. 

Our  present  theme  is  the  influence  of  the  Bible  upon 
civilization,  not  the  broader  one  of  influence  of  the  church, 
nor  even  of  Christianity  in  general.  The  influence  of  the 


THE  BIBLE  AND  CIVILIZATION 


833 


Christian  faith  extends  beyond  the  limits  of  the  influence 
of  the  book,  and  yet  the  book  in  its  turn  has  exerted  an 
influence  even  beyond  the  limits  of  the  church’s  life. 
Christianity’s  book  has  been  an  educative  and  civilizing 
force  wherever  it  has  touched  the  life  of  humanity. 

The  idea  of  civilization  includes  two  primary  elements, 
the  intellectual  and  the  social.  We  call  men  civilized  when 
they  know  how  to  live  together  with  a  sense  of  the  values 
which  history  has  bequeathed  and  with  a  conscious  pur¬ 
pose  to  conserve  and  enhance  those  values.  Civilization 
may  be  defined  as  the  holding  of  the  past  in  the  present. 
But  it  is  also  a  recognition  of  the  truth  that  the  future 
is  implicit  in  the  present.  A  civilization  that  looks  only 
at  the  past  is  futile  and  dying.  Genuine  civilization  is 
progressive.  But  it  is  a  matter  of  immeasurable  impor¬ 
tance  what  sort  of  principles  and  aims  control  the  move¬ 
ments  of  society  as  men  look  toward  the  future.  Not  all 
movement  is  progress.  When,  therefore,  we  ask  concern¬ 
ing  the  influence  of  the  Bible  on  civilization,  we  should 
not  merely  have  an  eye  for  the  quantity  of  its  influence, 
but  also  should  judge  of  its  quality.  We  must  ask  con¬ 
cerning  the  solidity  of  the  structure  of  Christian  civili¬ 
zation  and  concerning  its  ideals  for  further  building. 

Civilization  is  the  more  or  less  complete  organization 
of  all  the  phases  of  the  intelligent  social  life  of  mankind. 
It  shows  itself  in  the  ability  to  make  the  knowledge, 
accomplishment  and  art  of  the  individual  available  for 
the  whole  community.  It  has  to  do,  accordingly,  with  art 
and  industry  and  trade,  with  literature  and  education, 
with  religious  institutions,  and  with  the  maintenance  of 
social  rights  and  redress  of  social  wrongs.  In  all  these 
human  relations  and  interests,  religion  has  ever  been  an 
important — generally  the  dominant — factor.  In  the  long 


334  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


run  a  people’s  civilization  will  show  itself  to  be  as  that 
people’s  religion.  Moreover,  it  is  apt  to  be  true  that  the 
religion  makes  civilization  rather  than  the  civilization 
makes  the  religion.  The  intellectual  progress  of  a  people 
sometimes  unmakes  a  given  religion,  but  philosophy  and 
science  have  never  succeeded  in  making  a  new  religion 
to  take  the  place  of  a  dying  superstition.  “Pagan  religion 
is  full  on  one  side,  but  empty  on  the  other.”  In  the  end 
pagan  religion  turns  out  to  be  comparatively  futile,  and 
generally  it  is  degrading.  Idolatry,  at  least,  is  necessarily 
degrading;  “they  that  make  them  (the  idols)  are  like  unto 
them.”  The  life  of  a  people  will  be  controlled  by  the 
people’s  conception  of  God. 

In  the  earlier  years  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Victoria,  an 
African  embassy  came  to  London  to  pay  her  homage. 
They  presented  gifts  and  with  them  a  question  from  their 
prince.  He  desired  to  know  the  secret  of  England’s 
greatness.  In  reply  the  Queen  delivered  to  them  a  splen¬ 
did  copy  of  the  Bible  to  be  brought  to  their  prince  with 
this  word:  “Tell  the  prince  that  this  Book  is  the  secret 
of  England’s  greatness.”  Now,  this  holds  true  respecting 
the  moral  greatness  of  England  or  any  Christian  nation. 
Whether  the  earthly  power  of  a  people  is  due  to  the  same 
cause  is  another  question.  Yet  surely  the  real  greatness 
of  any  people  is  moral  and  religious. 

The  relation  of  the  Bible  to  civilization  is  a  vast  theme ; 
only  a  very  summary  sketch  of  it  can  be  offered  here. 
We  begin  with  an  inquiry  into  the  secret  of  the  Bible’s 
unique  influence  upon  the  life  of  mankind. 

The  Bible  is  at  once  the  most  radical  and  the  most 
conservative  of  books.  It  is  the  most  conservative,  be¬ 
cause  it  continually  points  to  the  eternal  reality  of  God 
himself  and  his  historical  self-revelation  in  Jesus  Christ. 


THE  BIBLE  AND  CIVILIZATION 


335 


Thus  the  Bible  shows  where  the  good  and  the  true  are  to 
be  found,  and  forbids  mere  drifting.  It  is,  at  the  same 
time,  the  most  radical  of  books,  because  it  goes  to  the  root 
of  every  matter,  and  cuts  away  the  rubbish  of  falsehood 
and  dissolves  useless  and  obstructive  customs.  Thus  it 
makes  impossible  the  perpetual  idolizing  of  the  formal 
aspects  of  human  life  and  institutions,  and  at  the  same 
time  forbids  the  casting  away  of  the  essential  truth  estab¬ 
lished  in  human  history.  The  Bible  is  so  tremendously 
progressive  a  book  because  it  is  at  once  the  book  of  God 
and  the  book  of  mankind. 

1.  The  Bible  and  Social  Morality. — The  effect  of  the 
Bible  upon  the  life  of  mankind  has  its  roots  in  the  Chris¬ 
tian  conception  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  It  is  a  con¬ 
ception  of  his  universal  love  and  goodness  joined  with 
an  inexorable  righteousness  in  his  government  and  his 
requirement  of  like  righteousness  on  the  part  of  his  chil¬ 
dren.  As  a  corollary  of  God’s  Fatherhood  the  thought 
of  the  brotherhood  of  man  asserts  itself.  Out  of  this 
twofold  unity  of  the  Christian  view  of  life  have  grown 
fruits  of  social  love  and  righteousness  of  which  the  non- 
Christian  world  scarcely  dreamed. 

Christianity  sets  an  immense  value  upon  the  individual. 
No  other  system  of  thought  and  life  approaches  it  in  this 
respect.  At  the  same  time  Christianity  quite  eclipses  all 
other  systems  in  its  emphasis  upon  the  social  principle. 
The  Bible  alone  recognizes  and  honors  all  men  as  men, 
and  it  alone  seeks  to  realize  a  genuine  universal  brother¬ 
hood.  It  is  a  brotherhood  of  mutual  reverence  and  love, 
and  of  positive  mutual  service.  It  would  be  most  inter¬ 
esting  and  rewarding  if  we  might  here  trace  out  the 
historical  effects  of  the  Biblical  conception  of  the  sacred¬ 
ness  and  value  of  human  life.  We  could  go  back  to  the 


336  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


divine  lesson  to  Abraham  that  he  should  not,  after  the 
manner  of  the  surrounding  peoples,  sacrifice  his  son.  We 
should  note  the  immense  significance  of  the  command¬ 
ment,  “Thou  shalt  not  kill.”  We  should  then  dwell  upon 
Jesus'  works  of  mercy,  who  “came  not  to  destroy  life  but 
to  save  it."  We  should  mark  the  way  in  which  Christian 
sentiment  abolished  infanticide  in  the  Roman  world,  and 
then  in  turn  the  cruel  gladiatorial  shows.  Furthermore, 
we  should  show  how  in  Christian  lands  alone  the  care  of 
the  weak  and  sick  became  a  settled  principle,  expressing 
itself  in  hospitals  and  asylums.  Also  the  abolition  of 
slavery,  though  it  came  tardily,  is  clearly  the  outgrowth 
of  the  Biblical  estimate  of  man. 

The  Bible  alone  affords  an  adequate  conception  of  the 
worth  of  woman  as  the  equal  of  man,  and  a  true  basis  for 
a  sound  family  life.  We  need  not  trace  the  steps  of  the 
Christian  revolution  in  this  regard — the  main  facts  will 
be  patent  to  the  reader. 

Again  the  Bible  has  proved  the  profoundest  humanizing 
and  socializing  agency  in  that  it  recognizes  the  dignity  of 
labor  and  of  humble  service.  However  crying  the  wrongs 
of  “labor"  are  and  have  been  within  the  bounds  of  Chris¬ 
tian  civilization,  these  wrongs  are  recognized  as  alto¬ 
gether  opposed  to  Christianity;  moreover,  Christianity  has 
wonderfully  lessened  them,  and  it  can  never  rest  until 
they  are  all  removed.  It  is  impossible  to  affirm  that  the 
church  in  its  organized  character  has  consistently  cham¬ 
pioned  the  rights  of  the  common  people.  The  church  as 
a  visible  institution  has  never  been  the  perfect  expression 
of  its  own  innermost  spirit,  which  is  the  spirit  of  right¬ 
eousness.  The  laws  of  the  Hebrews  were  a  Magna 
Charta  of  the  rights  of  men.  The  prophets  were  fearless 
champions  of  social  righteousness.  Jesus  above  all 


THE  BIBLE  AND  CIVILIZATION 


337 


effectually  taught  and  actually  inspired  the  practice  of 
brotherly  love  toward  all  men.  This  spirit  cannot  pos¬ 
sibly  be  repudiated  by  his  followers.  And  indeed  Chris¬ 
tianity  has  already  wrought  great  things  in  the  reforma¬ 
tion  of  the  industrial  and  economic  life  of  mankind. 

2.  The  Bible  and  Civil  Institutions. — The  Bible  does 
not  predetermine  for  us  what  form  of  government  we 
shall  adopt.  It  does  not  specifically  or  directly  sanction 
any  mere  form  of  government  as  such,  whether  it  be 
monarchy  or  democracy.  Nevertheless,  the  inner  prin¬ 
ciples  of  the  Bible’s  teachings  have  had  a  great  deal  to 
do  with  shaping  the  constitutions  and  laws  of  states. 
These  principles  are  broad  and  simple,  but  they  are  funda¬ 
mental  and  unyielding.  At  the  same  time  the  modes  in 
which  the  principles  express  themselves  may  and  do  differ 
very  widely.  Moreover,  we  must  recognize  it  as  a  fact 
that  a  government  monarchical  in  form  may  effectually 
guarantee  the  rights  of  man,  while  a  so-called  democracy 
may  be  a  grievous  tyranny.  In  its  relation  to  the  civil 
life  of  man,  as  in  every  other  relation,  the  Bible  is  not  a 
book  of  rules  but  a  book  of  principles. 

Modern  civilization  is  rooted  chiefly  in  the  life  of 
three  nations  of  antiquity ;  Israel,  Greece  and  Rome.  It 
is  often  said  that  from  Greece  we  have  derived  our  chief 
conceptions  of  art,  philosophy  and  intellectual  culture  in 
general,  from  Rome  we  have  received  the  greatest  lessons 
in  law  and  political  organization,  while  from  Israel  we 
have  our  religion.  But  let  us  not  fail  to  see  that  even  in  the 
matter  of  law  the  Mosaic  legislation  has  been  of  enor¬ 
mous  influence  upon  modern  civilization — some  authori¬ 
ties  maintain  that  it  has  been  no  less  powerful  than  that 
of  Rome.  That  influence  has  been  exerted  in  two  ways, 
the  indirect  and  the  direct.  How  great  the  influence  of 


338  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


the  Hebrew  laws  was  upon  the  ancient  systems  of  Greece 
we  cannot  easily  determine.  Various  ancient  authorities 
and  modern  scholars  have  asserted  that  the  philosophers 
Plato  and  Aristotle  were  acquainted  with  the  laws  of 
Moses  and  derived  many  of  their  ideas  from  them.  While 
the  philosophers  were  not  lawgivers  they  exerted  a  strong 
influence  upon  the  course  of  practical  affairs.  The  Hebrew 
influence  upon  Greece  was,  however,  largely  an  uncon¬ 
scious  one — it  must  have  come  about  through  commerce 
and  travel  more  than  through  books.  It  must  be  admitted 
that  that  influence,  while  considerable,  was  not  really  so 
marked  as  some  writers  fondly  maintain.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  clear  that  the  spirit — rather  than  the  form— of 
Hebrew  legislation  was  a  real  factor  in  the  legislation  of 
the  Roman  Empire  in  the  period  following  the  nominal 
Christianization  of  the  Empire.  Here  that  influence  is 
more  direct  than  it  could  be  in  the  pre-Christian  era.  So 
far  as  English  law  is  concerned,  Alfred  the  Great  drew 
directly  and  largely  upon  the  Mosaic  legislation.  Another 
period  in  which  the  Old  Testament  law  and  the  teaching 
of  the  New  Testament  were  of  mighty  influence  in  Eng¬ 
land  was  that  of  the  Puritan  domination  under  Cromwell. 
At  a  still  earlier  period  the  phase  of  the  Reformation  that 
centered  in  Geneva  and  about  the  person  of  John  Calvin 
was  marked  by  essentially  the  same  features.  The  same 
was  true  of  the  Reformation  in  Scotland  under  John 
Knox.  When  later  the  Puritans  settled  in  New  England, 
they  earnestly  strove  to  establish  a  government,  under  the 
sanction  or  permission  of  the  English  crown,  that  should 
be  as  Biblical  as  possible.  It  had,  however,  too  much  of 
the  character  of  the  Old  Testament  law,  which  did  not, 
of  course,  rise  to  the  level  of  the  liberty  of  the  New 
Testament. 


THE  BIBLE  AND  CIVILIZATION 


339 


A  full  exposition  of  the  dependence  of  modern  civil 
law  upon  the  Bible  cannot  be  attempted  here.  A  few 
statements  of  eminent  authorities  may  be  added  to  what 
has  been  said,  and  the  details  of  the  matter  be  left  for 
the  interested  reader’s  further  inquiry.  Kent,  in  his  Com¬ 
mentaries,  declares  that  the  ideas  of  right  and  justice  that 
largely  prevail  in  Western  civilization  depend  in  the  main 
upon  Christianity.  Dr.  D.  O.  Mears  has  said :  “The 
vital  principles  given  at  Sinai  appear  alike  in  the  code  of 
Theodosius,  the  laws  of  Charlemagne  and  of  Alfred, 
wending  their  way  from  the  wilderness  around  Sinai  to 
the  very  smallest  New  England  town;  making  the  words 
of  Dean  Milman  literally  true:  ‘The  Hebrew  Lawgiver 
has  exercised  a  more  extensive  and  permanent  influence 
over  the  destinies  of  mankind  than  any  other  individual 
in  the  annals  of  the  world.’  ”  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  in  a 
certain  decision,  declared  that  “Christianity  is  parcel  of 
the  common  law.”  Many  other  jurists,  English  and 
American,  have  enunciated  the  same  doctrine.  Daniel 
Webster,  for  example,  declared :  “The  Christian  religion, 
in  its  general  principles,  must  ever  be  regarded  among  us 
as  the  foundation  of  civil  society.”  Another  writer  says : 
“The  Christian  system  is  the  moral  source  of  an  unde¬ 
termined  but  very  large  part  of  our  common  as  well  as 
of  our  statute  law.” 

3.  The  Bible  in  its  relation  to  exploration  and  com¬ 
merce. — In  a  considerable  measure  it  is  self-interest  that 
has  dominated  exploration  and  commerce.  Nevertheless, 
the  religion  of  the  Bible  has  in  many  an  instance  shown 
itself  to  be  the  effectual  motive  in  both;  and  certainly 
Christianity  has  opened  up  doors  for  commerce  which 
mere  business  enterprise  was  powerless  to  move.  The 
most  impressive  missionary  figure  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 


340  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


tury  was  the  great  explorer,  David  Livingstone.  His 
attitude  toward  the  task  of  exploration  is  shown  in  the 
words :  “The  end  of  the  exploration  is  the  beginning  of 
the  enterprise.”  His  contributions  to  geographical  knowl¬ 
edge  were  immense,  and  they  were  purchased  at  tremen¬ 
dous  cost  and  with  wonderful  heroism.  But  many  another 
missionary  has  in  some  measure  shared  in  such  work  as 
Livingstone  did.  In  view  of  it  all,  R.  N.  Gust,  Esq.,  once 
Honorary  Secretary  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  made 
this  statement :  “The  missionary  appears  to  me  to  be 
the  highest  type  of  human  excellence  in  the  nineteenth 
century,  and  his  profession  to  be  the  noblest.  He  has  the 
enterprise  of  the  merchant,  without  the  narrow  desire  of 
the  gain;  the  dauntlessness  of  the  soldier,  without  the 
necessity  of  shedding  blood;  the  zeal  of  the  geographical 
explorer,  but  for  a  higher  motive  than  science.”  Early 
in  the  nineteenth  century  the  directors  of  the  East  India 
Company  expressed  the  following  judgment:  “The  send¬ 
ing  of  Christian  missionaries  into  our  Eastern  posses¬ 
sions  is  the  maddest,  most  expensive,  most  unwarrantable 
project  that  was  ever  proposed  by  a  lunatic  enthusiast.” 
And  yet  subsequent  history  has  made  it  clear  that  not 
only  in  India  but  everywhere  in  the  Orient  and  in  the 
Islands  of  the  Pacific  it  is  the  missionaries  that  have  done 
more  than  all  other  agencies  in  opening  up  commerce. 
As  to  India,  Sir  Rivers  Thompson,  formerly  Lieutenant- 
Governor  of  Bengal,  declared:  “In  my  judgment,  Chris¬ 
tian  missionaries  have  done  more  real  and  lasting  good 
to  the  people  of  India  than  all  other  agencies  combined.” 

4.  The  Bible  and  Art. — The  influence  of  the  Bible  on 
the  development  of  art  has  confessedly  been  immense;  yet 
it  must  be  acknowledged  that  that  influence  belongs  chiefly 
to  the  Christian  era  and  not  to  Old  Testament  times.  The 


THE  BIBLE  AND  CIVILIZATION 


341 


art  of  most  peoples  of  antiquity  developed  largely  by 
means  of  their  efforts  worthily  to  represent  their  gods  by 
images.  But  Israel  was  forbidden  to  make  images  either 
of  Jehovah  himself  or  of  anything  on  the  land  or  in  the 
sea.  That  is,  images  for  religious  uses;  but  the  people 
came  to  think  that  they  must  make  no  image  of  any  living 
thing  for  any  purpose  whatsoever.  This  misconception 
was  an  effectual  check  upon  the  artistic  spirit  of  the  people. 
Yet  it  is  clear  that  such  art  as  the  people  of  Israel  did 
develop  in  ancient  times  was  largely  inspired  by  their 
religious  conceptions.  This  is  manifest  in  the  account 
of  the  building  of  Solomon’s  temple  with  its  ornamenta¬ 
tion,  and  in  the  descriptions  of  the  vestments  of  the 
priests,  and  other  matters.  The  coming  of  Christ  and 
the  triumph  of  the  free  spirit  of  the  gospel  broke  down 
the  barriers  to  the  right  exercise  of  the  artistic  instinct. 

The  domain  of  art  in  which  religion  finds  its  most 
characteristic  expression  is  architecture.  Ruskin  said : 
“Every  great  national  architecture  has  been  the  result  and 
exponent  of  a  great  national  religion.’’  But  Christianity 
has  inspired  architectural  ideals  that  are  as  universal  as 
the  race.  Mohammedan  art  is  not  universally  adaptable; 
neither,  of  course,  is  the  art  of  the  modern  pagan  religions. 
The  art  of  ancient  Greece  undoubtedly  has  the  elements 
of  truth  which  fit  it  for  the  widest  uses  and  for  all  time. 
Yet  even  the  art  of  Greece  was  not  adequate  for  the  use 
of  the  church  without  very  marked  modifications.  The 
church  gradually  evolved  its  own  type  of  architecture,  or 
rather  several  types.  The  crown  of  the  development  is 
the  Gothic  type.  The  spiritual  suggestiveness  of  the 
Gothic  architecture  is  felt  by  all.  It  is  a  noteworthy  fact 
that,  just  as  the  classical  style  prevails  in  edifices  for 
civil  government,  so  the  Gothic  style  prevails  in  church 


342  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

architecture.  It  would,  however,  be  unfair  to  fail  to 
recognize  the  glories  of  other  styles,  as  they  are  repre¬ 
sented  in  certain  great  churches :  the  Byzantine  ( Sancta 
Sophia  and  the  new  Westminster  Roman  Catholic  Cathe¬ 
dral)  ;  churches  of  the  Italian  Renaissance,  based  largely 
on  classical  models  (the  Cathedral  at  Florence  and  St. 
Peter’s  Church  at  Rome) ;  and  churches  of  still  other  types 
— Romanesque,  Norman,  and  composite. 

The  churches  and  chapels  of  Christendom — especially 
in  Catholic  countries — have  been  filled  with  pictures  and 
images  either  realistic  or  symbolical.  The  practical  sig¬ 
nificance  of  these  pictures  and  images  is  splendidly  set 
forth  by  Ruskin  ('‘Stones  of  Venice”).  He  is  describing 
St.  Mark’s,  which  he  aptly  calls  “The  Book  Temple.”  Its 
“walls,”  he  says,  “necessarily  became  the  poor  man’s  Bible, 
and  a  picture  was  more  easily  read  upon  the  walls  than  a 
chapter.” 

A  brief  survey  of  the  history  of  painting  clearly  reveals 
the  enormous  influence  of  the  Bible  and  the  Christian 
religion  upon  its  development.  From  the  Roman  cata¬ 
combs  we  learn  how  early  painting  was  brought  into  the 
service  of  religion  and  how  the  Biblical  history,  especially 
the  life  of  Christ,  furnished  a  wealth  of  material  for  the 
artist.  Early  Italian  painting  just  preceding  the  Renais¬ 
sance  was  intensely  and  impressively  Christian.  And  from 
that  time  to  this  a  very  large  part  of  the  best  of  the  world’s 
paintings  owes  its  idea  and  inspiration  to  the  Bible.  When 
one  thinks  of  the  most  impressive  and  powerful  paintings 
in  the  world,  our  minds  immediately  turn— -not  forgetful 
of  the  equal  technical  merits  of  other  creations — to  such 
pictures  as  Da  Vinci’s  “Last  Supper,”  Raphael’s  “Sistine 
Madonna”  and  “Transfiguration,”  Rubens’  “Descent 
from  the  Cross,”  and  various  Biblical  paintings  and  etch- 


THE  BIBLE  AND  CIVILIZATION 


343 


ings  by  Rembrandt.  And  if  we  glance  over  the  art  of 
our  own  day  (and  of  the  period  recently  closed)  we  can¬ 
not  pass  by  “The  Prophets”  by  Sargent  nor  the  religious 
subjects  of  the  Pre-Raphaelites,  of  Gebhardt,  and  of 
Steinhausen. 

The  influence  of  the  Bible  upon  music  has  been  no  less 
mighty  than  upon  architecture  and  painting.  Indeed,  it 
sometimes  seems  to  have  been  profounder  here  than  any¬ 
where  else.  For  from  the  beginning  there  was  no  barrier 
to  the  expression  of  the  religious  feeling  in  “making  a 
joyful  noise  unto  the  Lord,”  with  all  manner  of  instru¬ 
ments  of  music  to  lend  their  voices  to  the  chorus  of 
praise.  It  was  only  in  a  period  of  unhealthy  reaction 
that  the  use  of  music  in  worship  was  curtailed  in  modern 
Protestantism. 

The  Bible  has  furnished  the  themes  for  an  immense 
variety  and  wealth  of  song — hymns,  anthems,  cantatas, 
oratorios.  Also  much  noble  organ  music  has  been  in¬ 
spired  by  the  Christian  religion  and  dedicated  to  use  in 
Christian  worship.  It  must  suffice  here  merely  to  remind 
the  reader  of  the  vast  religious  import  of  the  works  of 
Palestrina,  Bach,  Handel,  Haydn,  Mandelssohn  and  other 
masters.  Their  best  work  was  inspired  by  the  Christian 
faith  and  their  grandest  themes  are  derived  from  the 
Bible.  A  certain  writer  has  said  that  not  so  much  the 
land  of  Palestine,  but  rather  the  passion  music  of  Bach, 
deserves  to  be  called  the  fifth  Cospel.  But  the  same  thing 
applies,  in  varying  measure,  to  many  another  great  com¬ 
poser — to  Mozart  and  Beethoven  and  Cesar  Franck.  Per¬ 
haps,  however,  the  inspiring  power  of  the  Bible  and  the 
Christian  faith  in  the  realm  of  music  is  nowhere  so  con¬ 
vincingly  manifested  as  in  the  wealth  of  noble — in  some 
instances  unsurpassable — strains,  produced  by  relatively 


344  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


obscure  men,  to  voice  the  praises  of  the  people  in  their 
public  worship.  While  much  congregational  psalmody  is 
unworthy  of  its  lofty  theme,  it  is  universally  acknowl¬ 
edged  that  the  best  chorales,  psalm-  and  hymn-tunes  show 
a  depth  of  feeling,  and  a  dignity  of  expression  not  easily 
surpassed. 

5.  The  Bible  and  Learning. — Not  in  spirit  only,  but 
also  in  the  most  direct  practical  way  the  Bible  has  been  a 
wonderful  educator  of  the  mind  of  man.  It  has  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  progress  at  its  very  core.  It  teaches  that  it  is  the 
will  of  God  that  men  should  adore  him  in  his  works. 
Therefore  God  gave  the  earth  into  the  dominion  of  men, 
while  he  himself  rules  over  all.  It  cannot  be  denied  that 
ecclesiastical  authority  has  often  stood  in  the  way  of  the 
progress  of  science.  The  opposition  of  church  tradi¬ 
tion  to  the  new  knowledge  in  the  realm  of  nature  has 
been  no  more  bitter — probably  it  has  been  even  less  bitter 
— than  that  in  relation  to  historical  and  Biblical  science. 
But  the  force  that  has  been  continually  overcoming  the 
fear  of  the  light  has  been  the  very  spirit  of  the  Bible  itself. 
No  doubt  the  general  desire  of  the  human  mind  “to  learn 
some  new  thing”  has  been  a  constant  factor;  yet  it  is  in 
Christian  lands  that  the  spirit  of  learning  has  chiefly 
flourished.  “The  learning  of  the  Egyptians”  died  out 
and  was  buried.  The  glorious  intellectual  life  of  ancient 
Greece  might  have  been  swept  away — -after  it  had  suffered 
a  long  period  of  decay — but  for  the  saving  grace  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  Certainly  it  is  Christianity  that — in  spite  of  the 
Church’s  shortcomings — kept  alive  the  seeds  of  learning 
in  the  Middle  Ages.  And  it  is  an  obvious  fact  that  nearly 
all  the  universities  of  the  Middle  Ages  and  of  the  modern 
world  owe  their  origin  to  the  spirit  of  the  Christian  re¬ 
ligion.  Down  to  the  present  time  the  same  spirit  of  faith 


THE  BIBLE  AND  CIVILIZATION 


345 


continues  to  show  itself  in  according  the  largest  possible 
freedom  to  the  intellectual  life.  It  must,  of  course,  be 
acknowledged  that  in  the  name  of  the  Christian  religion 
some  men  have  continually  sought  to  set  limits  to  free 
inquiry.  Yet  wherever  this  tendency  has  appeared,  there 
have  arisen  champions  of  intellectual  freedom  and  prog¬ 
ress,  who  clearly  drew  their  inspiration  from  the  Bible. 
And  it  is  these  that  have  continually  carried  off  the  palm. 
One  might  almost  say  that  the  Bible  has  been  the  charter 
of  intellectual  as  well  as  civil  liberty  for  the  modern  world.. 
We  hear  much  concerning  the  conflict  between  science 
and  dogma,  but  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  spirit  of 
progress  continually  bursts  forth  wherever  there  is  a  free 
use  of  the  Scriptures,  and  it  is  the  Bible  itself  which  proves 
the  deadliest  foe  to  the  spirit  that  would  fix  religious 
thought  in  a  scheme  of  unalterable  dogma. 


Chapter  XXV 

THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  WORLD’S  LITERATURE 

Whatever  the  influence  of  the  Bible  upon  the  subsequent 
development  of  literature,  it  is  itself  a  rich  and  marvelous 
literature.  The  narrative  art  displayed  in  large  portions 
of  the  Old  Testament,  notably  Genesis  and  the  books  of 
Samuel  and  the  Kings,  is  of  the  very  highest  order.  The 
poetry  of  the  Psalter,  of  Job  and  Isaiah  is  in  its  way 
unequaled.  Also  the  New  Testament  has  a  literary  merit, 
especially  in  the  record  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus,  that  is 
beyond  praise.  Many  competent  critics  have  given  the 
book  of  Job  the  first  place  among  the  world’s  great  poems. 
And  as  for  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  of  Jerusalem,  these 
show  a  brilliancy,  energy  and  imaginative  power  that 
reveal  their  author  as  the  equal  of  any  poet-orator  that 
the  world  has  known. 

The  so-called  Bibles  of  the  non-Christian  world  are  by 
no  means  void  of  literary  excellences.  These,  however, 
are,  by  comparison  with  the  literature  of  our  Bible,  rela¬ 
tively  few  and  slight.  The  Vedas  are  good  literature,  also 
the  Zend-Avesta ;  but  what  are  these  in  comparison  with 
our  Bible  ?  As  for  the  Koran,  it  is  an  unspeakably  dreary 
book.  At  least  it  seems  so  to  us ;  Mohammedan  scholars 
would  have  us  believe  there  are  great  beauties  in  it. 

We  are  here  concerned,  however,  not  so  much  in  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Bible  its  rightful  place  as  a  body  of  litera¬ 
ture  as  in  recognizing  the  measure  of  the  Bible's  influence 
upon  the  literature  of  the  nations  of  Christendom.  This 

346 


BIBLE  AND  THE  WORLD’S  LITERATURE  347 

influence  has  been  immense  in  all  Christian  countries,  but 
perhaps  greatest  among  English-speaking  peoples.  For 
obvious  reasons  we  shall  dwell  chiefly  upon  the  influence 
of  the  Bible  in  English  literature.  At  the  same  time  we 
must  not  overlook  the  relevant  facts  that  pertain  to  other 
countries.  Let  one  but  mention  the  names  of  Dante, 
Tasso,  Pascal,  Fenelon,  Goethe,  Schiller,  Tolstoy,  and  the 
fact  of  the  breadth  and  depth  of  that  influence  is  at  once 
apparent.  Not  that  all  these  writers  were  in  full  accord 
with  the  Biblical  doctrine.  Goethe,  for  example,  declared 
himself  to  be  “a  decided  non-Christian” ;  and  yet  his 
writings  manifest  a  very  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
Bible  in  a  wealth  of  interesting  allusion. 

The  beginnings  of  modern  literature  in  Anglo-Saxon 
England  were  Biblical.  We  have  already  had  a  glimpse 
of  the  work  of  Caedmon  in  his  ^‘Bible  Paraphrases.”  Fol¬ 
lowing  this  inspired  though  unlettered  poet  we  come  to 
two  other  great  names,  the  names  of  men  of  genius  and 
learning :  Bede  and  Alcuin.  The  Venerable  Bede  has  been 
called  “the  father  of  English  learning.”  Alcuin,  also  a 
Bible  translator,  became  the  adviser  of  Charlemagne,  and 
as  such  he  had  the  honor  of  founding  the  University  of 
Paris  and  giving  a  mighty  impulse  to  Christian  learning 
in  Charlemagne’s  vast  realm.  We  have  seen,  moreover, 
how  King  Alfred  was  himself  either  Bible  translator  or 
the  procurer  of  the  work  by  the  hands  of  others.  To  him 
England  owes,  if  tradition  may  be  relied  on,  not  only  the 
founding  of  Oxford  University,  but  the  beginnings  of 
England’s  prose  literature.  And  we  know  that  for  Alfred 
the  Bible  was  the  one  supreme  book. 

Now  the  influence  of  the  Bible  upon  English  literature 
is  by  no  means  confined  to  the  work  which  consciously 
represents  the  spirit  of  the  Bible.  Chaucer’s  debt  to  the 


348  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Bible,  for  example,  is  far  greater  than  one  might  infer 
from  his  rather  worldly  view  of  life.  The  same  remark 
must  be  applied  also  to  many  a  later  writer,  for  even  those 
writers  who  are  more  or  less  indifferent  to  the  Biblical 
faith  are  nowise  free  from  the  spell  of  the  literary  idiom 
of  the  Bible. 

We  are  considering  the  influence  of  the  English  Bible, 
in  any  or  all  of  its  versions,  upon  English  literature. 
Manifestly  the  extent  of  that  influence  will  be  found  to 
vary  in  different  periods  and  with  different  individuals 
more  or  less  in  the  measure  of  their  interest  in  and  occu¬ 
pation  with  its  contents.  The  influence  of  Wicklif’s 
Bible  upon  literature  was  less  than  it  might  have  been,  if 
the  language  had  not  been  rather  rapidly  altering  in  the 
century  between  him  and  Tindale.  But  we  have  seen  that 
Tindale’s  memory  retained  and  unconsciously  reproduced 
much  of  Wicklif’s  phraseology.  With  Tindale’s  New 
Testament  the  influence  of  the  Bible  upon  literature  begins 
to  be  more  marked. 

The  three  who  rank  perhaps  highest  in  the  Elizabethan 
and  the  next  following  age — -Spenser,  Shakespeare  and 
Milton — -drew  immensely  from  the  Bible.  Of  very  par¬ 
ticular  interest  is  the  study  of  the  theme,  “The  Bible  in 
Shakespeare,”  to  which  more  than  one  writer  has  devoted 
an  entire  volume.  Milton’s  great  yet  unpretentious  con¬ 
temporary,  John  Bunyan,  was  simply  saturated  with  the 
?.hought  and  language  of  the  Bible.  “The  Pilgrim’s 
Progress”  has  been  the  object  of  an  immense  admiration, 
except  in  those  times  or  in  those  circles  where  so-called 
“fine  writing”  was  affected.  Bunyan,  this  most  Biblical 
of  English  writers,  is  also  a  model  of  pure  and  vigorous 
English. 

Between  the  age  of  the  Puritan  movement  of  the  seven- 


BIBLE  AND  THE  WORLD’S  LITERATURE  3i9 


teenth  century  and  the  revival  of  evangelical  religion  in 
the  eighteenth  century  the  use  of  the  Bible  among  the 
English  people  lapsed  considerably.  In  this  period,  also, 
Biblical  language  and  Biblical  allusions  are  less  in  evidence 
than  formerly.  It  is  true,  Pope  is  very  fond  of  Biblical 
allusions,  and  he  uses  them  very  aptly.  This,  however, 
is  with  him  rather  superficial.  In  this  period  the  models 
of  classical  antiquity  are  more  in  evidence  than  those  fur¬ 
nished  by  the  Biblical  writers.  From  about  the  middle  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  however,  a  religious  awakening 
sent  men  back  to  their  Bible,  with  the  result  of  a  great 
deepening  of  feeling  and  a  great  gain  in  the  simplicity 
and  sincerity  of  expression.  From  the  time  of  Cowper 
to  the  present  day  the  influence  of  the  Bible  upon  English 
thought  and  literary  style  has  been  exceedingly  great. 

The  Biblical  element  in  Byron  is  an  impressive  and 
significant  phenomenon.  Byron  was  no  Christian  saint, 
but  he  knew  his  Bible,  and  was  fond  of  Biblical  themes 
and  Biblical  language.  And  there  is  Sir  Walter  Scott. 
The  attentive  reader  cannot  but  note  how  wonderfully 
apt  and  how  frequent  are  his  Biblical  allusions. 

We  might  call  the  roster  of  the  great  names  in  English 
literature  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and  should  find  that 
in  nearly  every  instance  their  indebtedness  to  the  Bible  is 
very  great.  This  applies  in  a  very  special  measure  to 
Ruskin,  regarded  by  many  as  the  supreme  master  of  Eng¬ 
lish  prose  in  his  time.  He  tells  us  how  he  learned  to  use 
his  mother  tongue.  As  a  boy  he  was  strictly  required  to 
read  and  know  his  Bible.  His  mother  was  his  teacher. 
She  began  “with  the  first  verse  of  Genesis,  and  went 
straight  through  to  the  last  verse  of  the  Apocalypse — hard 
names,  numbers,  Levitical  law  and  all;  and  began  again 
at  Genesis  next  day.  If  a  name  was  hard,  the  better  the 


350  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


exercise  in  pronunciation;  if  a  chapter  was  tiresome,  the 
better  the  lesson  in  patience;  if  loathsome,  the  better  the 
lesson  in  faith  that  there  was  some  use  in  its  being  so  out¬ 
spoken.”  Besides  the  daily  reading,  the  boy  was  required 
to  learn  by  heart  a  considerable  number  of  passages  in 
the  Bible.  The  extent  of  Ruskin’s  use  of  the  Bible  in 
his  writings  may  be  seen — yet  only  in  part — in  a  book  of 
300  pages  entitled  “The  Bible  References  of  John  Ruskin” 
(London:  George  Allen,  1898).  The  collection  is  doubt¬ 
less  relatively  complete,  but  only  in  so  far  as  Ruskin’s 
direct  references  to  the  Bible  are  concerned.  If  one  would 
collect  all  the  passages  in  the  works  of  Ruskin  which  con¬ 
tain  mere  allusions  to  the  Bible  in  addition  to  these  specific 
references,  the  book  would  be  a  much  larger  one — to  say 
nothing  of  the  countless  places  in  which  the  language  of 
the  Bible  has  influenced  his  expression. 

Aside  from  Ruskin  the  two  English  writers  of  the  first 
order  whose  use  of  the  Bible  is  most  abundant  and  im¬ 
pressive  are  Tennyson  and  Browning.  The  former  has 
borne  testimony  to  his  appreciation  of  the  style  of  the 
English  Bible  in  the  following  words:  “The  Bible  ought 
to  be  read,  were  it  only  for  the  sake  of  the  grand  English 
in  which  it  is  written,  an  education  in  itself.”  The  most 
accessible  and  convenient  study  of  Tennyson’s  use  of  the 
Bible  is  to  be  found  in  Henry  van  Dyke’s  “The  Poetry  of 
Tennyson,”  in  the  chapter  entitled  “The  Bible  in  Tenny¬ 
son.”  A  more  minute  study  of  the  subject  is  Edna 
Moore  Robinson’s  “Tennyson’s  Use  of  the  Bible”  (a 
Johns  Hopkins  University  doctor’s  dissertation,  1917). 
The  author  has  noted  about  2,000  Biblical  allusions  in 
Tennyson,  and  she  does  not  pretend  to  have  exhausted 
them. 

Browning’s  use  of  the  Bible  is  even  richer  than  Tenny- 


BIBLE  AND  THE  WORLD’S  LITERATURE  361 


son’s.  Biblical  allusions  are  particularly  abundant  in  “The 
Ring  and  the  Book.”  In  Browning’s  use  of  the  Bible  one 
is  frequently  struck  by  a  certain  originality  of  interpre¬ 
tation — he  gives  the  reader  no  whimsical  view  of  the 
passage,  but  often  he  sets  it  in  a  very  clear  and  novel 
light.  For  a  fuller  study  of  the  subject  the  reader  is 
referred  to  “The  Bible  in  Browning,  with  particular  refer¬ 
ence  to  The  Ring  and  the  Book,”  by  Minnie  Gresham 
Machen,  Macmillan,  1903. 

England  had  no  finer  literary  critic  in  the  nineteenth 
century  than  Matthew  Arnold.  His  estimate  of  the  Eng¬ 
lish  of  our  Bible  is  therefore  of  great  weight.  When  the 
English  Bible  was  made,  good  English,  he  says,  “was  in 
the  air.”  In  that  period,  “get  a  body  of  learned  divines 
and  set  them  down  to  translate,  the  right  meaning  they 
might  often  have  difficulty  with,  but  the  right  style  was 
pretty  well  sure  to  come  of  itself.”  Writing  on  the  same 
general  theme,  Professor  A.  S.  Cook  expresses  a  similar 
judgment:  “When  a  writer,  with  a  native  vigor,  lightness 
and  rapidity  of  his  own,  has  become  wholly  permeated, 
as  it  were,  with  the  thought  and  diction  of  the  Bible,  .  .  . 
we  have  from  him  such  a  clear,  simple  and  picturesque 
style  as  that  of  Bunyan.” 


PART  VI:  HOW  TO  READ  THE  BIBLE 


PART  VI:  HOW  TO  READ  THE 

BIBLE 


Chapter  XXVI 

THE  APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE 

(a)  The  Aim. — ‘‘Understandest  thou  what  thou  read- 
est?”  Like  every  other  book,  the  Bible  wants  to  be  under¬ 
stood.  It  claims  no  honor  for  itself  except  as  the  vehicle 
of  a  divine  message.  And  there  is  no  honor  that  can  be 
bestowed  upon  it  comparable  with  understanding  it.  Yet 
for  any  one  of  us  its  meaning  can  remain  a  hidden  treas¬ 
ure.  The  treasure  is  most  rich,  but  it  has  only  a  potential, 
not  an  actual,  value,  until  it  is  brought  to  the  light.  The 
true  object  of  Bible  reading  is  to  understand  what  is 
written. 

But  what  is  it  to  understand  the  Bible?  The  force  of 
this  question  will  be  clearer  if  we  make  it  universal  and 
ask:  What  is  it  to  understand  any  book?  The  answer  is 
plain :  We  have  understood  a  book,  when,  through  the 
medium  of  the  given  words,  we  have  penetrated  to  the 
author’s  own  thought  and  intention. 

Doubtless  the  ultimate  aim  of  all  serious  Bible  reading 
is  to  discover  what  message  of  truth  it  may  have  for  men 
to-day,  but  the  immediate  task  is  to  ascertain  what  the 
words  meant  when  first  written. 

In  the  reading  of  books  there  are,  of  course,  various 
levels  and  degrees  of  understanding.  A  child  and  a  man 

355 


356  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


may  be  reading  the  same  book:  ordinarily  the  man  will 
see  more  in  the  book  than  the  child  can  see;  and  yet  the 
child’s  understanding  is  real  as  far  as  it  goes.  We  under¬ 
stand  a  writing  in  the  measure  in  which  we  enter  into  the 
writer’s  situation  and  share  in  his  experiences.  If  he  is 
dealing  with  matters  wholly  inaccessible  to  our  experience, 
we  shall  be  able  to  understand  nothing.  Where,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  are  able  to  enter  fully  into  a  situation  like 
that  of  the  writer,  our  understanding  can  be  relatively 
complete.  Between  these  extremes  lie  all  the  various 
degrees  of  understanding. 

(b)  The  Problem. — Here,  then,  lies  our  problem :  How 
may  we  overcome  the  distance  that  separates  writer  from 
reader?  How  may  we  put  ourselves  in  the  place  of  the 
writer,  see  with  his  eyes,  hear  with  his  ears,  feel  with 
his  heart?  For  the  measure  in  which  we  are  able  to  do 
this  will  be  the  measure  of  our  understanding. 

All  human  speech,  whether  spoken  or  written,  is  an 
effort  at  communication.  The  speaker  or  writer  desires 
to  share  with  others  his  thought,  feeling  and  purpose. 
But  human  communication  is  a  mutual  affair;  it  involves 
a  mutual  approach.  On  the  one  side,  the  speaker  or  writer 
must  find  the  way  of  approach  to  hearer  or  reader.  He 
needs  to  be  acquainted  with  his  situation  and  to  under¬ 
stand  his  idiom  of  thought  and  speech.  On  the  other, 
the  hearer  or  reader  must  do  his  part;  he,  too,  must  find 
a  v/ay  to  meet  the  one  who  is  seeking  to  communicate 
something.  Neither  part  of  the  affair  proceeds  auto¬ 
matically.  The  task  of  the  first  party  is  self-expression 
in  relation  to  given  hearers  or  readers.  This  is  some¬ 
times  exceedingly  difficult  and  is  never  quite  effortless. 
The  task  of  the  hearer  or  reader  also  may  be  pretty 
strenuous,  and,  at  best,  understanding  never  comes  with- 


THE  APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE  357 

out  sympathetic  attention.  The  speaker  has  at  his  com¬ 
mand  certain  means  of  expression  which  the  writer  lacks. 
Moreover,  when  a  speaker’s  meaning  is  not  quite  clear 
to  us,  we  are  sometimes  at  liberty  to  ask  for  further 
elucidation.  But  when  it  is  a  book  we  have  before  us— 
at  all  events,  if  it  is  a  book  whose  author  is  no  longer  with 
us — the  issue,  whether  the  author  is  to  be  understood  or 
not,  lies  wholly  with  us.  The  writer  has  done  what  he 
could,  he  has  made  his  “approach.”  Well  for  him,  if  he 
clearly  understood  the  mind,  temper  and  special  situation 
of  those  whom  he  addressed.  But  having  once  delivered 
himself,  he  is  at  the  mercy  of  the  reader.  If  even  the 
original  readers  of  a  Biblical  author  could  not  understand 
him  without  effort  and  attention,  it  is  manifest  that  for 
readers  like  ourselves,  so  remote  in  time  and  place,  there 
must  have  sprung  up  difficulties,  which  the  original  readers 
did  not  have  to  reckon  with. 

The  problem  of  Biblical  interpretation  is  primarily  a 
problem  of  the  right  approach.  Secondarily,  there  come 
also  certain  technical  questions,  especially  questions  of 
method.  These  are  important;  and  yet  method  and  all 
that  goes  with  it  will  prove  futile,  if  the  first  principles 
are  not  sound.  Given  the  right  approach,  and  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  the  principles  will  tend  to  be  right  also. 

The  problem  of  the  right  approach  to  the  Bible  is  two¬ 
fold.  First,  we  must  find  means  to  overcome,  as  com¬ 
pletely  as  possible,  the  distance  that  separates  us  from  the 
Biblical  writers ;  we  must,  that  is  to  say,  put  ourselves,  as 
nearly  as  may  be,  in  the  situation  of  the  original  readers 
of  a  given  book.  This  is  a  matter  of  immense  conse¬ 
quence  for  our  understanding  of  the  Bible,  and  the  thing 
is  not  easy  to  accomplish;  yet  it  is  after  all  only  a  pre¬ 
liminary  work.  It  is  merely  the  clearing  away  of  the 


358  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


obstructions  that  tirne  has  placed  in  the  way,  hindering 
our  coming  into  the  immediate  presence  of  the  author. 
But  if  we  have  succeeded  in  this,  there  lies  still  before  us 
the  second  part  of  our  task.  Just  as  it  was  with  the 
original  readers,  so  we  have  now  to  penetrate  to  the  real 
meaning  of  the  writer,  to  apprehend  and  understand  the 
truth,  the  spirit,  the  life,  that  is  in  the  words  and  behind 
them.—The  first  part  of  our  problem  is  to  find  the  true 
historical  approach;  the  second  is  to  find  the  right  per¬ 
sonal  approach.  The  first  is  a  matter  of  philological  and 
historical  research;  the  second  is  a  matter  of  spiritual 
intuition. 

The  Bible  lies  open  before  us ;  it  is  there  to  be  read  and 
understood.  Not  all  its  treasures,  however,  are  easily 
accessible.  There  are  many  parts  which,  without  patient 
scholarly  research,  must  remain  obscure.  Yet,  happily, 
God  has  not  made  our  communion  with  him  and  our  vital 
understanding  of  his  word  dependent  upon  the  researches 
of  scholars.  The  heart  of  the  Bible-above  all,  the  reve¬ 
lation  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ— stands  out  as  something 
so  simple,  so  immediate,  so  universal,  so  timeless,  that  it 
can  become  clear  to  all  men  in  any  age.  But  even  the 
unlearned  Christian  shares  in  the  benefits  of  the  researches 
of  the  scholars.  True  to  his  vocation  in  the  church,  the 
scholar  points  out  to  others  the  things  which  he  himself 
has  discovered,  and  so  the  insight  which  he  has  gained 
becomes  more  and  more  the  common  possession  of  the 
whole  community  of  believers.  No  unlearned  man,  who 
stands  in  living  fellowship  with  the  Christian  brother¬ 
hood,  can  read  his  Bible  without  enjoying,  consciously  or 
unconsciously,  many  of  the  fruits  of  the  labors  of  Biblical 
scholars.  Indeed,  the  two  ways  of  approaching  the  Bible 
— the  historical-scientific  and  the  spiritual-intuitive — can 


THE  APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE 


359 


never  be  wholly  separated.  No  man  is  a  mere  thinking 
machine  and  none  is  a  purely  intuitional  soul,  utterly 
devoid  of  scientific  interest  and  independent  of  the  tech¬ 
nique  of  language.  The  Bible  is  really  interpreted  only 
in  so  far  as  the  approach  to  it  is  both  historical  and 
spiritual. 

(c)  The  Historical  Approach. — Whatever  has  a  place 
in  history  is  to  be  viewed  and  understood  historically. 
This  is,  to  be  sure,  an  obvious  truism,  and  yet  the  principle 
is  one  which  we  often  forget.  No  phenomenon  of  histor^^ 
is  an  isolated  occurrence;  every  event  stands  in  organic 
relation  to  a  given  situation  and  to  a  chain  of  antecedents. 
This  holds  true  of  the  Bible  as  of  everything  else  in 
history.  Nothing  in  it  is  to  be  fully  understood  unless 
viewed  in  its  true  historical  relation.  All  this,  in  a  gen¬ 
eral  way,  we  recognize,  and  yet  too  often  we  lose  sight 
of  it.  One  of  the  two  great  essentials  in  the  art  of  Bible 
reading  is  that  we  learn  to  read  it  historically. 

To  read  the  Bible  historically  means  two  things :  we 
must  have  a  clear  historical  aim  and  a  sound  historical 
method. 

The  historical  aim  in  Bible  reading,  though  so  often 
lost  from  view,  is  in  principle  very  clear.  It  is  simply 
this:  to  see  the  given  words  just  as  their  author  meant 
them. 

If  anyone  should  object  that  such  a  goal  is  unattain¬ 
able,  that  we  can  never  recover  the  original  situation  per¬ 
fectly,  let  it  be  once  more  observed  that  even  present 
situations  and  current  utterances  cannot  be  known  by  us 
absolutely.  We  know  in  part;  and  yet  we  can  and  do 
attain  to  a  wonderfully  clear  and  rich  knowledge  of  things 
at  hand  and  of  things  remote.  An  adequate  historical 
understanding  of  the  Bible  is  attainable. 


360  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


And  if  it  should  be  objected  further,  that  what  we 
really  require,  when  we  read  our  Bible,  is  to  lay  hold  of 
its  present  message,  its  abiding  truth,  the  plain  answer 
must  be :  We  cannot  expect  to  gain  the  end  without  the 
use  of  the  obvious  means.  Doubtless  the  really  significant 
thing  in  the  Bible  is  its  abiding  truth ;  the  original  circum¬ 
stantial  setting  of  the  message  is  not  the  vital  thing.  And 
yet  the  road  for  us  into  the  abiding  truth  of  the  Bible 
lies  through  the  writings  as  historically  given.  We  shall 
hardly  apprehend  the  present  force  of  the  words  if  we 
neglect  the  original  meaning. 

What,  then,  are  the  things  that  must  be  done  in  order 
that  we  may  come  at  a  Biblical  author  with  the  greatest 
possible  immediacy?  What  hindrances  are  to  be  over¬ 
come? 

( 1 )  We  have  to  do  with  books  written  in  other  tongues 
than  our  own.  By  an  immense  amount  of  labor  on  the 
part  of  many  scholars  this  natural  obstacle  has  been  very 
effectually  overcome  for  us.  Not,  however,  completely; 
many  translations  are  altogether  admirable,  but  none  can 
be  ideally  perfect.  Besides,  every  translation,  no  matter 
how  adequate  when  first  put  forth,  tends  gradually  to  be¬ 
come  obsolete.  As  readers  of  the  English  Bible,  we  have 
been  made  to  realize  that  the  stream  of  time  has  been 
surely,  if  slowly,  carrying  us  away  from  that  grand  land¬ 
mark,  the  familiar  King  James  Version.  There  is  need 
of  continuous  labor  on  the  part  of  Biblical  scholars  to 
give  us  the  most  intelligible  rendering  of  the  text  in  our 
own  speech.  And  every  Bible  reader  who  is  able  to  do 
so  will  do  well  to  familiarize  himself  with  the  Scriptures 
in  the  original  tongues. 

(2)  The  Biblical  books  are  ancient  literature  and  we 
are  moderns.  Those  writings  are  the  outgrowth  of  a  long 


THE  APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE 


361 


history,  all  of  which  is  ancient  to  us.  The  essence  of  the 
Bible  we  believe  to  be  timeless,  eternal;  but  that  eternal 
essence  we  find  there  clothed  in  modes  of  thought  belong¬ 
ing  to  ages  very  unlike  our  own  time.  Yet  this  ancient 
book  must  be  so  read  and  interpreted  as  to  speak  clearly 
to  the  men  of  to-day.  Here  again  the  ordinary  Bible 
reader  is  largely  dependent  upon  the  illumination  that 
comes  from  the  researches  of  men  of  special  learning. 
Left  to  himself  he  would  find  much  of  the  Bible  hopelessly 
obscure.  Progress  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Bible  is  the 
outcome  of  the  fellowship  and  cooperation  of  many 
laborers  in  this  field.  What  we  might  not  have  been  able 
to  discover  for  ourselves  we  may,  perhaps,  both  see  and 
appreciate,  when  another  points  it  out  to  us.  Earnest 
Biblical  research  has  cleared  away  many  obstructions  in 
the  way  to  the  temple  of  Holy  Scripture. 

(3)  We  need  to  gain  a  clear  view  of  the  special  situa¬ 
tion  that  forms  the  historical  background  of  each  several 
writing.  Each  book  came  into  existence  as  a  result  of  a 
particular  set  of  influences  and  in  relation  to  a  particular 
set  of  circumstances.  Everything,  therefore,  that  can  be 
learned  concerning  the  author’s  personality  and  history, 
concerning  the  occasion  of  the  writing,  and  concerning 
the  persons  addressed,  will  shed  light  upon  the  meaning  of 
the  words.  In  many  instances  the  book  itself  reveals  a 
large  part  of  all  we  need  to  know  of  its  historical  and 
psychological  background,  but  in  every  instance  we  may 
be  able  to  discover  valuable  sidelights.  This  holds  true 
in  an  eminent  degree  in  the  study  of  prophetic  literature 
and  most  of  the  apostolic  Epistles,  for  these  writings 
sprang  directly  out  of  lively  concrete  situations. 

(4)  The  historical  approach  to  the  Bible  assumes  that 
its  modes  of  thought  and  expression  are  genuinely  human. 


362  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


The  most  thorough  examination  of  the  phenomena  of 
Biblical  authorship  confirms  this  assumption.  Therefore 
(in  the  words  of  Dr.  Benjamin  Jowett)  :  “Interpret  the 
Bible  like  any  other  book !”  The  incomparable  significance 
of  its  message  lifts  the  Bible,  in  this  respect,  out  of  the 
company  of  all  other  books,  yet  that  message  has  come 
to  us  in  an  utterly  human  manner.  There  is  nothing 
abnormal,  nothing  extra-human,  in  the  Bible  writers’  ap¬ 
proach  to  their  readers;  therefore  our  approach  to  them 
should  be  normally  human.  We  should  read  the  Bible  in 
the  well-grounded  assurance  that  the  writers  meant  to 
make  their  meaning  plain  and  that  we  are  bound  to  be 
equally  straightforward  in  our  dealings  with  them.  All 
strange,  artificial  and  fantastic  schemes  of  interpretation 
are  to  be  utterly  avoided. 

From  the  ancient  Jewish  rabbis  there  passed  into  the 
Christian  Church  an  inclination  to  seek  for  some  spiritual 
mystery  beneath  the  literal  sense  of  Scripture.  It  was 
supposed  that  the  meaning  of  the  inspired  word  could  not 
possibly  exhaust  itself  in  the  mere  literal  sense.  And  so 
it  came  about  that  many  of  the  Church  Fathers  held  that 
almost  every  text  had  a  twofold  sense,  the  literal  and  the 
spiritual.  Some  (as  Origen)  found  a  threefold  sense  in 
Scripture.  This  was  later  extended  to  a  fourfold  sense, 
so  that  every  text  or  story  had  to  be  interpreted  “literally, 
allegorically,  tropologically,  and  anagogically.”  A  mediae¬ 
val  couplet  sets  forth  the  theory : 

Littera  gesta  docet;  quid  credas  Allegoria; 

Moralis  quid  agas ;  quo  tendas  Anagogia. 

Manifestly  such  a  method  of  “interpretation”  is  loose 
enough  to  give  play  to  all  sorts  of  capricious  fancies;  it 


THE  APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE 


363 


ceases  to  be  interpretation  and  becomes  a  method  of  in¬ 
jecting  one’s  own  notions  into  the  text  rather  than  draw¬ 
ing  forth  the  meaning  of  the  writer. 

Fortunately  there  were  many  Church  Fathers  who  did 
not  accept  the  allegorizing  method.  The  leading  advocates 
of  the  principle  that  Scripture  had  one  plain  meaning  be¬ 
longed  to  Antioch,  so  that  the  advocates  of  a  common- 
sense  interpretation  were  known  as  “the  Antiochian 
School”  in  distinction  from  “the  Alexandrian  School”  of 
Origen.  But  in  a  later  period  church  dogma  checked 
both  the  allegorists  and  the  common-sense  interpreters. 
The  authority  of  the  Church  settled  once  for  all  what  was 
the  sense  of  Scripture.  The  Reformers  repudiated  the 
dogmatic  control  of  interpretation  as  well  as  the  allegoriz¬ 
ing  method.  The  Protestant  churches,  however,  soon 
drifted  into  a  more  or  less  dogmatic  groove  or  bias,  inter¬ 
preting  the  Bible  in  support  of  their  special  doctrines. 

“Interpret  the  Bible  like  any  other  book.”  This  rep¬ 
resents  the  standpoint  of  modern  Biblical  scholarship. 
Scripture  has  one  plain  sense,  and  it  is  our  business  to 
understand  it.  The  literal  sense  of  Scripture  may  have 
to  do  with  the  most  spiritual  matters,  but  the  language 
does  not  bear  a  double  meaning.  “The  literal  sense,”  said 
Frederick  Maurice,  “is  the  spiritual  sense.” 

A  few  specimens  of  the  “spiritualizing”  of  Scripture 
should  prove  useful.  The  Rabbi  Akiba  said  that  there 
was  a  mystic  meaning  in  every  letter  and  even  every  tittle 
and  flourish  of  every  letter  in  Scripture.  Philo,  a  Jewish 
philosopher  of  the  Platonic  stamp,  held  that  the  whole  or 
the  greatest  part  of  the  Hebrew  legislation  is  allegorical. 
Origen,  who  was  specially  given  to  a  spiritualizing  inter¬ 
pretation,  fancied  he  had  solid  support  for  this  in  the 
well-known  verse :  “The  letter  killeth,  but  the  Spirit  giveth 


364  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY' 

life.”  But  he  certainly  misunderstood  his  text.  Read  in 
connection  v/ith  the  whole  argument  of  which  it  is  a  sort 
of  conclusion,  the  text  simply  teaches  that  the  letter  of  the 
law  threatened  death  to  those  who  disobeyed  it,  while  the 
Spirit  promises  life  to  all  who  will  believe.  But  Origen, 
minded  to  “spiritualize”  everything,  had  no  trouble  in 
explaining  away  whatever  in  the  Old  Testament  seemed 
to  him  unreasonable  or  unworthy  of  God.  In  multitudes 
of  passages  he  finds  the  literal  story  meaningless  and 
unedifying,  and  so  he  seeks  a  meaning  worthy  of  the  mind 
of  God.  How,  he  asks,  could  the  hearers  be  edified  by 
the  trivialities  of  Leviticus  and  Numbers?  God  cannot 
be  thought  of  as  having  given  minute  regulations  about 
fat  and  leaven.  Of  what  advantage  could  it  be  to  read 
of  the  drunkenness  of  Noah,  or  of  other  foul  stories  in 
the  Bible?  And  so,  because  he  was  determined  to  find 
something  “spiritual”  in  every  passage,  whether  such  a 
thing  was  really  there  or  not,  he  either  denied  or  ignored 
the  literal  sense  of  many  passages.  A  curious  example  of 
his  fantastic  method  is  seen  in  his  explanation  of  the 
words  of  John  the  Baptist:  “whose  shoe’s  latchet  I  am 
not  worthy  to  unloose.”  “I  think,”  says  Origen,  “that 
one  of  the  shoes  is  the  incarnation,  when  the  Son  of  God 
assumes  flesh  and  blood,  and  (the  other)  the  descent  into 
Hades.” 

Now  all  this  is  not  only  fanciful,  subjective,  and  arbi¬ 
trary,  but  it  is  also  unspiritual.  For  it  is  imposing  our 
thoughts  upon  the  Scriptures,  it  is  not  waiting  upon  God. 

The  recognition  of  the  genuine  human  aspects  of  the 
Bible  must  include  the  largest  possible  appreciation  of  the 
literary  species  and  types  represented  in  the  Bible.  An 
acquaintance  with  the  dominant  characteristics  of  the 
Hebrew  literary  genius  will  help  greatly  in  the  interpre- 


365 


THE  APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE 

tation  of  many  passages.  Is  it  a  bit  of  folk-lore  that 
we  have  before  us?  Or  perhaps  a  traditional  narrative? 
Or  a  prophetic  oracle  ?  Ora  psalm  for  the  temple  service  ? 
In  each  instance  inquiry  will  show  that  the  Hebrews  had 
developed  a  special  characteristic  manner  suited  to  the 
purpose.  Poetry  in  the  Bible  must  be  read  not  merely  as 
poetry,  but  as  Hebrew  poetry,  a  narrative  as  a  Hebrew 
narrative,  and  so  forth.  The  historical  approach  to  the 
Bible  includes  the  sesthetic-literary  appreciation  and 
understanding.  Such,  then,  is  the  problem  of  the  his¬ 
torical  approach  to  the  Bible.  In  order  to  reach  the  point 
where  we  can  enjoy  the  clearest  view  of  the  Bible,  we  need 
to  avail  ourselves  of  the  help  of  those  who  have  learned 
more  than  we.  But  after  all  it  is  our  own  attitude  and 
effort  that  must  signify  most.  No  one  can  look  and  listen 
and  understand  for  us.  All  that  “Helps”  and  helpers  can 
do  is  to  make  access  easier  for  us.  “The  true  use  of 
interpretation,”  as  Dr.  Benjamin  Jowett  has  well  said, 
“is  to  get  rid  of  interpretation,  and  to  leave  us  alone  in 
the  company  of  the  author.” 

(d)  The  Personal  Approach. — Unless  the  Bible  is 
studied  historically  it  cannot  be  understood  fully;  unless 
it  is  read  with  a  personal  touch  and  intuition  it  cannot  be 
understood  at  all.  Much  of  the  Bible  can  be  understood 
without  scholarship,  none  of  it  without  a  certain  spiritual 
intelligence.  The  same  is  true,  of  course,  in  relation  to 
every  book  that  has  to  do  with  human  life.  To  the  read¬ 
ing  of  any  such  book  one  must  bring  “the  hearing  ear 
and  the  understanding  heart.” 

(1)  He  who  would  read  the  Bible  understandingly, 
must  come  with  the  largest  possible  openness  of  mind  and 
freedom  from  bias.  Now  an  open  mind  is  not  the  same 
thing  as  a  doubtful  mind.  The  doubter  may,  indeed,  have 


366  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


an  open  mind,  but  no  less  may  the  Christian  believer.  The 
open-minded  Christian  does  not  “wake  up  every  morning 
with  the  thought  that  everything  is  an  open  question.” 
The  Christian  has  at  least  one  great  certainty :  that  God 
has  revealed  himself  in  the  Christ  of  the  Bible.  Hence 
he  is  sure  of  the  truth  of  the  Bible’s  essential  message, 
which  is  the  word  concerning  Christ.  But  this  practical, 
religious  certainty  regarding  the  Bible  settles  no  question 
as  to  the  sense  of  any  passage  or  the  correctness  of  mere 
details. 

If  the  Christian  believer  in  reading  his  Bible  is  inclined 
to  take  it  for  granted  that  everything  in  it  is  absolutely 
correct  and  right,  the  reader  who  is  not  yet  a  believer 
needs  to  guard  against  an  adverse  prejudice  and  a  spirit 
of  unfairness.  The  reader  of  the  Bible  must  learn  to 
listen,  to  be  intelligently  receptive.  It  is  not  for  him  to 
judge  or  guess  what  the  writer  should  be  saying,  but  to 
note  precisely  what  he  does  say. 

(2)  The  reader  of  the  Bible  should  use  and  honor  his 
own  common  sense.  There  is  no  sphere  of  life  where 
common  sense  is  a  means  of  such  blessing  as  just  in  re¬ 
ligion  and  especially  in  the  reading  of  the  Bible.  In  the 
Whitsunday  prayer  for  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  in  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  there  is  this  most  wholesome 
petition :  “Grant  us  by  the  same  Spirit  to  have  a  right 
judgment  in  all  things.”  We  honor  our  Creator  when 
we  faithfully  use  our  understanding.  It  is  mere  fanaticism 
that  holds  it  to  be  unspiritual  so  to  do. 

(3)  To  read  the  Bible  aright  it  is  necessary  also  that 
we  use  our  moral  sense.  Now  our  conscience  can  never 
determine  what  a  Bible  writer  actually  said  in  any  given 
passage.  That  is  a  question  for  intelligent  historical 
inquiry  to  settle.  But  our  moral  sense,  enlightened  by 


THE  APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE 


367 


the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  competent  to  distinguish 
between  that  which  is  in  keeping  with  that  revelation  and 
that  which  belongs  to  a  lower  level.  In  the  Old  Testament 
there  are  passages  which  ascribe  thoughts  and  purposes 
to  God,  which  are  incompatible  with  his  revelation  of 
himself  in  Jesus  Christ.  When  dealing  with  such  passages 
the  Bible  reader  is  in  danger  of  falling  into  a  snare.  He 
is  tempted  either  to  explain  away  the  limitation  of  the 
writer’s  moral  insight  or  else  he  feels  himself  forced  to 
call  something  good  in  God  which  he  would  call  evil  in 
man.  Infinitely  better  is  it  frankly  to  recognize  the  moral 
imperfections  of  the  Old  Testament  religion.  Jesus  recog¬ 
nized  them.  “Of  old  time  it  hath  been  said  unto  you 
.  .  .  but  I  say  unto  you.”  To  sum  up  the  thought;  Our 
moral  sense  has  nothing  to  say  as  to  what  a  Bible  writer 
actually  said  or  meant,  but  an  enlightened  Christian  con¬ 
science  refuses  to  be  blind  to  the  presence  of  religious 
ideas  in  the  Bible  that  fall  below  the  level  of  Christ’s 
supreme  revelation  of  God.  Such  things  are  not  the  mind 
of  the  Spirit,  but  the  thoughts  of  men. 

(4)  We  must  read  the  Bible  in  the  spirit  of  loyalty  to 
the  truth  and  freedom  from  all  human  authority  in 
spiritual  things.  Wherever  we  find  truth  we  have  not 
merely  to  recognize  but  also  to  obey  it.  And  indeed  it  is 
only  in  the  practice  of  it  that  our  knowledge  of  the  truth 
can  grow  and  become  ever  surer  and  clearer.  Nothing 
but  condemnation  and  shame  can  come  from  seeing  the 
light  and  then  refusing  to  walk  in  it.  But  the  truth,  once 
perceived,  absolutely  binds  the  conscience.  There  is  no 
escape. 

Yet  the  conscience  which  freely  acknowledges  itself 
bound  by  the  truth  and  the  right  enters  into  perfect  free¬ 
dom.  By  virtue  of  its  truth — a  truth  which  each  man 


368  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


may  know  for  himself — the  Bible  sets  the  loyal  soul  free 
from  every  other  authority.  The  church  has  no  right  to 
enslave  our  consciences  or  our  understanding.  “The 
right  of  private  judgment,”  which  the  Reformers  so 
strongly  asserted,  is  a  fundamental  principle  in  the 
spiritual  realm.  The  right  of  private  judgment  is  not 
the  fancied  right  to  be  deaf  to  the  voice  of  testimony. 
The  individual  cannot  discover  the  gospel  for  himself; 
he  needs  the  testimony  of  those  who  can  show  him  where 
the  priceless  treasure  is  to  be  found.  Yet  the  church’s 
ministry  to  the  individual  is  not  to  believe  for  him,  but 
to  guide  him  into  the  truth,  so  that  he  may  see,  judge 
and  believe  for  himself.  The  right  to  see  the  light  for 
oneself — this  is  the  right  of  private  judgment. 

The  danger  of  ecclesiastical  or  dogmatic  control  of  our 
Bible  reading  is  a  very  real  one.  The  Roman  Church  has 
its  well-defined  dogmatic  interpretation  of  Scripture.  This 
we  reject  and  condemn;  and  yet  the  Protestant  denomina¬ 
tions  generally  have  their  traditional,  semi-official  inter¬ 
pretations.  We  must  rise  above  all  sectarian  exegesis, 
proving  all  things  and  holding  fast  that  which  is  good. 
In  the  rich  and  free  fellowship  with  the  thought  and  life 
of  Christendom  we  shall  be  able  to  escape  the  tyranny  of 
ecclesiastical  authority  on  the  one  hand  and  the  vagaries 
of  fanatical  eccentrics  on  the  other. 

What  the  Bible  can  and  does  mean  to  individual  souls 
can  never  be  told.  It  has  been  the  book  of  light  and 
strength  and  consolation  to  countless  millions.  To  Augus¬ 
tine,  after  hearing  a  most  appealing  sermon  by  Ambrose 
at  Milan,  there  seemed  to  come  the  unspoken  words,  T olle 
lege,  tolle  lege.  In  the  reading  of  the  Gospels  he  found 
the  light.  It  was  the  study  of  the  Bible  that  brought 
Luther  into  the  liberty  of  a  son  of  God  and  made  him  a 


THE  APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE 


369 


Reformer.  And  it  was  while  listening  to  Luther’s  preface 
to  his  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  that 
Wesley  “felt  his  heart  strangely  warmed.”  It  was  with 
words  of  the  Bible  on  their  lips — words  that  had  brought 
daily  comfort  to  their  hearts — -that  the  martyrs  met  their 
death.  It  was  so  even  of  our  Lord  himself.  Surely  the 
Bible,  the  church’s  book,  is  also  the  individual’s  book. 


Chapter  XXVII 


PRACTICAL  SUGGESTIONS  ON  HOW  TO  READ 

THE  BIBLE 

The  fundamental  principles  of  Biblical  interpretation 
have  been  set  forth.  Their  quintessence  is  this :  We  must 
read  the  Bible  in  the  light  of  all  our  knowledge  of  its 
history  and  nature  and  with  a  sincere  effort  to  enter  into 
its  innermost  spirit.  Some  suggestions  as  to  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  these  principles  are  here  offered. 

(a)  Read  the  Bible  in  a  Correct  Text. — We  have 
learned  that  the  translation  of  the  Bible  text  has  not  been 
free  from  errors.  Modern  scholarship  has  accomplished 
very  much  in  the  correction  of  the  text.  So  far  as  the 
New  Testament  is  concerned,  the  recent  critical  editions 
doubtless  represent  a  very  close  approximation  to  the 
original  form  of  the  writings.  The  text  of  the  Old 
Testament  seems  to  contain  errors  that  can  never  be 
removed.  Now  while  the  errors  of  the  text  are  in  very 
few  instances  of  serious  import,  some  of  them  do  occasion 
more  or  less  confusion.  Therefore,  if  reading  the  Bible 
in  the  original  tongue,  let  the  student  avail  himself  of  the 
results  of  the  best  criticism;  and  if  he  reads  in  a  transla¬ 
tion,  let  him  use,  along  with  the  older  version,  the  best 
recent  translations,  since  these  are  based  upon  a  critical 
text. 

(b)  Read  the  Bible  with  Constant  Reference  to  Its 
Own  Literary  History. 

The  principle  with  which  we  have  here  to  do  has  already 

370 


HOW  TO  READ  THE  BIBLE 


871 


been  pointed  out;  it  remains  for  us  now  to  add  some 
elucidations  and  illustrations. 

The  literary  history  is  one  phase  of  the  general  history 
of  the  people  of  Israel,  which  includes  the  whole  complex 
of  the  nation’s  life,  outward  and  inward.  As  the  litera¬ 
ture  is  an  organic  part  of  the  whole,  the  whole  must  be 
kept  in  view  when  we  view  the  part.  But  we  are  here 
concerned  specially  with  the  literary  history.  A  literary 
history  involves,  among  other  things,  a  temporal  sequence 
of  writings,  the  influence  of  earlier  upon  later  writings, 
and  a  history  of  the  ideas  even  before  they  are  embodied 
in  the  given  books.  Each  writing  has  its  place  in  the 
stream  of  intellectual  and  literary  development. 

( 1 )  Therefore,  in  dealing  with  any  writing,  we  should 
take  full  account  of  its  relative  age.  Earlier  and  later 
writings  do  not  move  in  just  the  same  plane  or  sphere  of 
ideas.  Ideas  have  a  history.  Their  first  appearance  in 
literature  is  seldom  their  first  appearance  in  life.  Their 
roots  may  perhaps  be  traced  back  very  far  indeed.  It 
will,  however,  never  do  to  assume  that,  because  we  find 
an  idea  clearly  expressed  in  a  certain  book,  the  same  idea, 
at  least  in  germ,  must  be  present  in  all  the  earlier  Biblical 
writings.  Nothing  is  more  sure  to  distort  the  Scriptures 
than,  for  example,  the  disposition  to  read  the  ideas  of 
the  New  Testament  into  every  book  of  the  Old.  And 
yet  this  very  thing  has  been  much  in  evidence.  Doubtless 
the  germs  of  much  of  Jesus’  teaching  are  clearly  to  be 
seen  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  it  is  no  less  clear  that  he 
brought  something  that  was  new.  If  everything  that 
Jesus  taught  and  wrought  was  already  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  then  we  are  in  error  in  fancying  that  we  have  a 
New  Testament.  There  are  ideas  in  the  later  Prophets 
that  are  not  seen  in  Amos  and  Hosea.  In  like  manner  the 


372  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


later  Psalms  show,  as  related  to  the  earlier  ones,  a  de¬ 
velopment  of  ideas.  Between  the  Synoptics  and  the 
Fourth  Gospel  lies  no  little  space  of  time,  and  in  that  in¬ 
terval  the  development  of  thought  was  rapid.  Paul’s  later 
Epistles  as  compared  with  his  earlier  ones  reveal  im¬ 
portant  changes  in  the  life  of  the  churches  and  even  some 
interesting  changes  in  his  own  mode  of  thinking. 

(2)  We  should  read  the  Bible  with  a  full  recognition 
of  all  that  is  involved  in  the  diversity  of  authorship. 
Biblical  writers  show  as  much  individuality  as  any  others. 
They  do  not  cast  their  thoughts  in  a  single  mold;  their 
utterances  throughout  bear  the  stamp  of  their  individual 
personalities.  They  sometimes  differ  in  opinion  even  re¬ 
specting  serious  matters.  The  larger  unity  of  their  testi¬ 
mony  is  a  harmony  that  somehow  rises  above  many  minor 
dissonances.  We  have  no  right  to  seek  to  reduce  these 
differences  to  a  mechanical  uniformity  or  mere  monotone. 
The  thought  and  temper  of  Amos  and  the  writer  of  the 
Priestly  Code  are  not  the  same.  There  is  a  vast  difference 
between  the  attitude  of  the  authors  of  the  books  of  Ruth 
and  Jonah  on  the  one  hand,  and  that  of  the  book  of  Esther 
on  the  other.  Paul  and  James,  and  again  Paul  and  John, 
although  in  profound  agreement  in  what  is  really  essential, 
represent  quite  divergent  types  of  thought.  The  Evan¬ 
gelists  will  be  found  to  show  a  number  of  discrepancies 
in  details.  Such  facts  are  to  be  frankly  recognized.  They 
enhance  the  interest  of  the  Bible  and  they  do  not  diminish 
its  value. 

Some  books  of  the  Old  Testament  clearly  fall  below 
the  standard  of  the  higher  levels  of  religion  in  Israel. 
This  is  true  especially  of  Esther  and  the  Song  of  Solo¬ 
mon,  but  also— though  in  another  way — of  Ecclesiastes. 
The  Song  of  Solomon  has  to  do  with  earthly  love,  and 


HOW  TO  READ  THE  BIBLE  373 

its  kind  it  is  admirable.  But  let  it  be  read  as  it  is. 
The  attempt  to  make  it  symbolize  the  mutual  love  of 
Christ  and  the  Church  is  unwarranted.  For  the  writer 
of  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes  one  must  have  great  respect. 
He  was  struggling  for  a  victorious  faith,  and  that  fact 
gives  the  book  great  value ;  only  we  must  not  fail  to  recog¬ 
nize  its  limitations.  Its  author  was  “a  gentle  cynic,”  who 
found  faith  difficult.  That  these  two  last-named  books 
gained  a  place  in  the  Canon  was  doubtless  due  to  their 
association  with  the  name  of  Solomon.  But  the  fact  that 
they  are  in  the  Canon  affords  no  excuse  for  reading  into 
them  what  is  not  there. 

(3)  Intelligent  readers  of  the  Bible  will  duly  reckon 
with  the  fact  that  some  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
compilations  (Psalms,  Proverbs)  and  others  (the  Hexa- 
teuch  and  others)  are  of  composite  authorship.  It  is 
confusing  and  misleading  not  to  recognize  the  Psalter  as 
the  hymn-book  of  the  nation,  having  many  authors.  The 
book  of  Proverbs,  too,  must  have  come  from  many 
sources;  it  contains  the  proverbs  of  the  people,  even 
though  Solomon  may  have  been  the  source  of  many  of 
the  sayings.  Now,  not  all  the  Psalms  and  not  all  the 
Proverbs  are  in  perfect  mutual  accord.  Some  Psalms 
have  a  priestly,  and  others  a  prophetic,  spirit.  Some  are 
on  a  very  high  plane  of  spirituality,  while  others — as  the 
imprecatory  Psalms — fall  below  the  usual  Old  Testament 
level.  All  these  facts  are  to  be  seen  as  they  are. 

(4)  The  manifoldness  of  the  literary  forms  of  the 
Bible  must  not  be  disregarded  by  the  Bible  reader.  The 
Bible  is  to  be  read  as  literature,  albeit  a  literature  rich  in 
eternal  truth.  However  many  and  important  the  state¬ 
ments  of  truth  that  may  fairly  be  based  upon  the  Bible, 
the  Bible  itself  is  literature  and  not  dogma.  It  is,  more- 


374  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


over,  an  Oriental — specifically,  a  Semitic — literature;  the 
Oriental  idioms  of  thought  and  expression  are  not  those 
of  the  Occident.  Besides,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Bible 
exhibits  all  the  different  species  of  Semitic  literature. 
This  state  of  things  is  really  obvious  enough,  yet' many 
readers  of  the  Bible  have  failed  to  give  it  practical  recog¬ 
nition.  They  refuse  to  read  poetry  as  poetry,  because 
everything  in  the  Bible  must  be  “just  so.”  Now  there 
are  in  the  Bible  just  as  unmistakable  examples  of  frank 
fiction  as  one  may  find  anywhere.  It  is  probable  that  the 
author  of  Jonah  would  be  distressed,  if  he  were  alive 
to-day,  to  find  many  persons  insisting  upon  a  literal  inter¬ 
pretation  of  his  wonderful  narrative.  Then  there  are 
passages  of  poetry  in  which  the  imagery  is  amazingly 
bold.  Must  one  feel  bound  to  take  songs  about  the  sun 
and  moon  standing  still  and  the  little  hills  skipping  like 
lambs  as  having  been  intended  to  be  taken  literally? 
Biblical  writers  exercised  the  poet’s  license  as  freely  as 
others. 

(c)  The  application  of  the  principle  that  each  hook 
is  to  be  read  with  r^erence  to  its  historical  background 
requires  some  illustration.  Every  book,  as  we  have  seen, 
sprang  from  a  particular  historical  and  psychological 
situation.  In  respect  of  its  origin,  no  book  is  timeless — 
though  in  respect  of  their  destiny  some  are  timeless,  be¬ 
cause  they  are  for  all  time.  As  to  the  books  of  the  Bible, 
in  some  instances  the  historical  setting  is  relatively  unim¬ 
portant,  while  in  others  an  adequate  understanding  is 
quite  impossible  without  a  pretty  clear  knowledge  of  the 
historical  background.  The  book  of  Job  is  an  example 
of  the  first  class,  Isaiah  or  Jeremiah  of  the  other.  We 
shall  never  be  able  to  know  much  about  the  historical 
relations  of  the  book  of  Job  or  of  a  large  number  of  the 


HOW  TO  READ  THE  BIBLE 


375 


Psalms,  but  these,  because  they  move  in  the  realm  of  the 
inner  life  and  are  not  intimately  related  with  outward 
events,  are  still  richly  intelligible.  When,  however,  we 
turn  to  a  book  of  prophecy  in  the  Old  Testament  or  an 
Epistle  of  Paul  in  the  New,  we  begin  to  realize  how  indis¬ 
pensable  historical  insight  is.  And,  happily,  an  adequate 
historical  insight  is  generally  attainable. 

But  what  means  have  we  of  gaining  this  necessary 
historical  insight?  There  are  three  means  available.  The 
first — and  generally  the  most  important — is  the  given 
writing  itself.  Since  it  sprang  from  a  given  historical 
and  psychological  situation,  it  necessarily  reflects  it.  Use 
the  writing  as  a  glass,  through  which  you  are  to  look  in 
order  to  understand  and  vividly  realize  the  life  from 
which  the  writing  sprang.  This  every  intelligent  reader 
can  do  in  a  greater  or  smaller  measure,  but  of  course  the 
finished  art  of  historical  interpretation  is  not  learned  in 
a  day.  The  second  means  of  help  is  the  historical  insight 
and  perspective  afforded  by  the  other  Biblical  writers. 
One  would  not  think  of  gaining  a  clear  understanding  of 
the  apostolic  Epistles  without  studying  them  in  the  light 
of  the  narrative  of  the  Acts.  The  book  of  Jeremiah 
must  be  read  in  the  light  of  the  history  as  reflected  in  the 
book  of  Kings,  the  writings  of  earlier  prophets,  and  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy.  The  last  source  of  light  is  the 
extra-Biblical  history.  This  throws  much  light  upon 
Bible  history.  The  records  of  Assyria  and  Babylonia  are 
very  important  for  certain  periods  of  Old  Testament  his¬ 
tory  and  literature,  especially  for  the  books  of  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.  For  the  last  centuries  of  the  Old 
Testament  times  and  for  the  New  Testament  times  extra- 
Biblical  sidelights  are  relatively  abundant. 

Now  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  beginner  in  the 


376  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


study  of  the  Bible  can  at  once  become  a  master  in  this 
vast  field.  But  even  the  beginner  can  have  the  right 
method.  Even  from  the  beginning  one  can  understand 
what  historical  interpretation  means,  and  can  set  himself 
about  the  practice  of  it. 

(d)  Some  further  implications  of  the  historical  view 
of  the  Bible. 

(1)  Observe  the  principle  of  unity  in  a  writing.  Let 
the  structure  of  a  book  be  clearly  noted.  If  it  is  a  book 
in  the  stricter  sense,  a  writing  with  some  organic  unity 
as  distinguished  from  a  compilation,  then  the  reader 
should  keep  the  book  as  a  whole  in  view.  Now  every 
literary  unity  has  some  fundamental  aim,  some  controlling 
purpose.  Therefore  the  parts  must  be  viewed  in  relation 
to  the  whole  and  the  whole  in  relation  to  the  parts.  We 
must,  of  course,  take  in  a  book  or  a  discourse  word  by 
word,  we  cannot  take  in  the  whole  at  once;  nevertheless, 
the  competent  reader  or  listener  will  bear  in  mind  that  he 
has  not  got  the  full  meaning  until  he  has  followed  to  the 
end.  Therefore,  interpret  a  hook  as  a  whole. 

(2)  Read  a  text  in  connection  with  its  context.  This 
is,  of  course,  only  a  corollary  of  the  principle  of  unity. 
The  atomistic  method— -the  wresting  of  texts  from  their 
surroundings — is  a  most  fruitful  source  of  misunder¬ 
standings  and  perversions  of  the  sense  of  Scripture.  The 
Bible  is  not  a  congeries  of  atoms,  a  string  of  sayings  to 
be  understood  and  used  one  by  one.  The  Scripture  is 
discourse,  an  organism  of  thought  and  speech.  Some¬ 
times  the  wresting  of  texts  is  more  comical  and  irreverent 
than  misleading,  as  when  Lorenzo  Dow  preached  upon 
the  text  (as  he  announced  it)  :  ‘Top-knot,  come  down!” 
(It  was  a  sermon  against  the  fanciful  headgear  of  the 
women  of  his  time.)  The  words  are  a  perversion  of  a 


HOW  TO  READ  THE  BIBLE 


377 


fragment  of  the  solemn  passage :  “Let  him  that  is  upon 
the  housetop  not  come  down  to  take  anything  out  of  his 
house.”  But  unfortunately  many  texts  are  handled  in  a 
much  more  injurious — if  less  irreverent — fashion.  When 
in  all  solemnity  a  text  is  wrested  from  its  surroundings 
and  made  to  say  what  the  writer  never  dreamed  of,  that 
is  confusing  and  misleading.  The  whole  “proof-text 
method”  in  theology  must  be  repudiated.  Not  that  there 
are  no  texts  which  stand  forth  in  a  grand  completeness, 
so  that  it  seems  as  if  the  whole  gospel  were  contained  in 
them.  The  repudiation  of  the  proof-text  method  means 
only  that  one  must  view  every  part  in  relation  to  the 
whole.  If,  then,  a  part  seems  or  proves  to  be  an  epitome 
of  the  whole,  it  is  eminently  proper  to  appreciate  it  ac¬ 
cordingly.  But  the  rich  significance  of  the  part  appears 
only  as  we  know  the  whole.  We  see  clearly  that  John 
3:16  (“God  so  loved  the  world,”  etc.)  is  an  epitome  of 
the  whole  gospel,  but  we  discover  this  when  we  have 
known  the  whole  message,  and  not  before. 

Some  sects  have  been  built  about  some  perverted  text. 
Indeed,  most  sects  have  had  their  “favorite  texts,”  which 
they  have  either  more  or  less  perverted  or  at  least  brought 
into  an  unnatural  prominence,  thus  destroying  the  true 
perspective  of  Scripture. 

The  proof-text  method  is  such  that,  if  its  validity  be 
unquestioned,  “you  can  prove  anything  by  the  Bible.” 
St.  Augustine  hit  the  truth  of  the  matter  when  he  wrote : 
“The  sense  of  Scripture  is  Scripture.”  When  one  simply 
says,  “The  Bible  says”  this  or  that,  it  behooves  us  to 
inquire  whether  the  words  are  there  merely,  or  whether 
the  Bible  really  teaches  the  thing.  There  are  many  state¬ 
ments  in  the  Bible  which  a  writer  sets  up  only  in  order 
to  refute  them. 


378  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Examples  of  wrested  texts  are  countless.  An  interest¬ 
ing  one  is  “Touch  not,  taste  not,  handle  not”  (Col.  2:21). 
It  is  often  applied  to  the  use  of  alcoholic  beverages.  But 
Paul  made  no  reference  to  drink  in  this  passage;  he  was 
rebuking  some  of  his  readers  for  yielding  to  the  slavery 
of  external  ordinances.  The  good  cause  of  temperance 
has  a  solid  enough  foundation  without  resorting  to  a 
foolish  perversion  of  Scripture.  More  often,  however, 
it  is  an  unworthy  cause  that  appeals  to  some  favorite  text. 

“In  religion 

What  error  is  there  but  some  sober  brow 
Will  bless  it  and  approve  it  with  a  text?” 

“The  Devil  can  cite  Scripture  for  his 
purpose.” 

To  put  the  matter  briefly:  Reading  a  text  according 
to  its  context  is  to  inquire,  not  what  these  words  might 
mean  if  taken  apart  from  the  context,  but  what  they 
actually  do  mean  in  the  given  connection. 

From  what  has  been  said,  one  will  rightly  infer  the 
necessity  of  disregarding  the  traditional  chapter-and- 
verse  divisions  in  the  Bible.  In  many  instances  these 
correspond  in  a  measure  to  the  logical  structure  of  the 
writings,  but  very  often  they  seriously  disturb  the  sense. 
The  writings  fall  logically  into  sentences  and  paragraphs, 
and  these  are  to  be  determined  by  an  analysis  of  the  struc¬ 
ture  of  the  given  passages. 

(3)  Compare  Scripture  with  Scripture.  But  do  it 
intelligently!  It  is  obviously  desirable  to  compare  the 
several  writings  of  a  single  author  in  order  to  get  a 
better  perspective  of  his  world  of  thought.  This  will 
save  one  from  a  too  partial  and  restricted  application  of 
any  particular  expression.  But  also  compare  one  part  of 


HOW  TO  READ  THE  BIBLE  379 

Scripture  with  all  other  parts.  This,  however,  should  not 
be  done  without  the  fullest  recognition  of  the  contrasts 
as  well  as  the  similarities  in  the  modes  of  thought  (e.g., 
Esther  in  comparison  with  Jonah).  The  uncritical  as¬ 
sembling  of  passages  that  chance  to  contain  the  same 
word  or  phrase  often  leads  to  confusion. 

(e)  The  Use  and  Misuse  of  the  Bible.  We  have  recog¬ 
nized  that  the  Bible  is  to  be  read  and  understood  as  it 
is,  and  not  as  we  might  wish  or  fancy  it  to  be.  The  same 
principle  of  sincerity  requires  that  we  use  the  Bible  in 
accordance  with  its  real  nature  and  purpose.  Not  every 
fraction  of  Scripture  has  its  separate  use.  The  sense, 
the  soul  of  Scripture,  this  and  this  only  has  a  use  in 
religion.  In  connection  with  our  consideration  of  the 
right  uses  of  the  Scriptures  it  may  be  well  to  notice  some 
of  the  radical  misuses  to  which  the  Bible  is  sometimes 
subjected. 

It  is  a  radical  misuse  of  the  Bible  to  regard  it  as  a 
talisman,  or  to  use  its  words  as  magic.  Equally  unwar¬ 
ranted  and  superstitious  is  the  practice  of  opening  the 
Bible  at  random  and  placing  the  finger  upon  a  certain 
spot  and  then  taking  those  words — usually  with  some 
arbitrary  perversion  of  their  sense — as  the  determining 
factor  in  some  matter  of  conduct. 

It  is  a  radical  misuse  of  the  Bible  to  claim  its  sanction 
for  whatever  institutions  or  practices  are  mentioned  in 
it  without  being  specifically  condemned.  Polygamy,  slav¬ 
ery,  and  many  other  evils  have  been  defended  by  such 
unwarranted  appeals  to  the  Bible. 

It  is  a  radical  misuse  of  the  Bible  to  appeal  to  it  as  the 
last  resort  in  any  matter  of  natural  or  historical  science. 

(f)  The  Right  Use  of  the  Bible. 

(1)  The  Devotional  and  Practical  Reading  of  the 


380  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


Bible.  It  is  clearly  the  main  intention  of  the  writers 
of  the  Biblical  books  to  help  men  to  a  knowledge  of  the 
living  God.  It  is  equally  clear  that  the  reason  why  the 
Christian  world  cherishes  the  Bible  above  all  other  books 
is  the  certainty  that  in  it  and  through  it  God  is  really 
found.  The  supreme  function  and  use  of  the  Bible  is 
religious.  But  the  Scriptures,  being  a  collection  of  rich 
and  varied  literature,  are  susceptible  of  a  variety  of  uses. 
The  Bible  may  be  read  merely  as  literature:  its  contents 
will  then  be  found  marvelously  rich  and  impressive.  Or 
it  may  be  used  as  a  field  of  philological  study:  the  lan¬ 
guages  of  the  Bible  are  highly  interesting  and  important, 
and  they  have  had  an  interesting  history.  Or,  again,  one 
may  study  the  Bible  as  a  source-book  of  history — ^the  his¬ 
tory  of  peoples  and  manners  and  intellectual  culture: 
from  this  point  of  view  the  Bible  is  an  exceedingly  rich 
mine.  One  may  also  study  the  Bible  critically  in  order  to 
learn  all  that  may  be  known  of  its  origin  and  transmission 
and  all  its  historical  relations.  All  these  uses  of  the  Bible 
are  merely  incidental  to  its  main  use.  As  such  they  are 
absolutely  legitimate,  but  they  are  not  the  use  of  the  Bible 
as  Bible.  All  uses  but  one  belong  to  its  outer  court.  But 
it  is  possible  to  enter  into  its  inner  sanctuary.  The  heart 
of  the  Bible  is  God  himself  as  revealed  in  Jesus  Christ. 
All  literary  and  historical  appreciation  of  the  Bible  should 
serve  as  a  help  to  the  higher,  spiritual  appreciation  of  its 
message;  but  also  these  may  prove  a  barrier,  if  we  lose 
our  sense  of  perspective. 

Especially  Biblical  criticism  may  so  absorb  one’s  inter¬ 
est  that  he  fail  to  pass  beyond  the  sphere  of  the  external 
into  the  heart  of  the  Bible.  The  real  function  of  criti¬ 
cism,  as  we  have  previously  seen,  is  to  keep  open  the  way 
into  the  sanctuary  of  Scripture.  If,  however,  yvp  so 


HOW  TO  READ  THE  BIBLE 


381 


occupy  ourselves  with  the  external  aspects  of  the  Bible 
that  we  forget  to  penetrate  into  the  sanctuary,  criticism 
becomes  a  hindrance  to  religion.  Criticism  is  in  itself 
lawful  and  good,  but  like  all  good  things,  it  may  be  per¬ 
verted  from  its  true  ends.  Recognizing  both  the  use  and 
the  abuse  of  criticism,  some  pious  scholars  have  coun¬ 
selled  us  to  keep  our  critical  and  our  devotional  reading 
of  the  Bible  quite  separate.  Rightly  understood,  there 
is  wisdom  in  this  counsel.  Otherwise  understood,  it 
involves  a  serious  fallacy.  When  the  scholar  reads  his 
Bible  devotionally,  he  need  not  cast  aside  the  knowledge 
that  he  has  gained  from  critical  study.  Indeed,  he  cannot 
and  must  not  do  this ;  it  would  be  hypocrisy  to  try  to  do  it. 
If  his  critical  study  has  been  done  as  becomes  a  Christian, 
the  criticism  has  been  hallowed,  it  has  helped  to  keep  open 
for  him  the  way  into  the  sanctuary.  At  the  same  time 
the  critical  scholar  needs  to  feed  upon  the  word  just  as 
truly — yes,  and  just  as  simply — as  the  plainest  believer. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  be  a  babe  in  understanding  in  order 
to  have  a  simple  faith.  Yet  the  scholar  needs  to  give 
earnest  heed  to  the  art  of  dwelling  chiefly  upon  the  things 
that  pertain  to  the  essence  of  religion — the  contemplation 
of  God’s  works  and  ways,  and  the  spirit  of  loyal  service. 
Certain  well-known  lines  of  George  Herbert  may,  without 
violence,  be  very  well  applied  to  our  study  of  the  Bible: 

A  man  that  looks  on  glass, 

On  it  may  stay  his  eye ; 

Or,  if  he  pleaseth,  through  it  pass, 

And  then  the  heavens  espy. 

It  is  only  where  we  stay  the  eye  upon  the  external  aspects 
of  the  Bible,  that  criticism  becomes  vain  and  unfruitful. 

The  practical  design  of  the  Bible  is  not  best  served  by 


382  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


a  desultory  reading  of  it.  If  we  confine  our  reading  of 
the  Bible  to  certain  favorite  portions,  we  shall  fail  to  get 
the  instruction  and  inspiration  that  come  from  the  larger 
perspective.  At  the  same  time  it  is  not  only  natural  but 
also  eminently  fitting  that  we  should  exalt  some  portions 
above  some  others.  It  may  be  good,  at  times,  to  read  the 
Bible  through  in  course.  Yet  if  one  gives  to  Leviticus  as 
much  time  and  thought  as  to  Luke,  the  true  balance  and 
perspective  are  lost.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  center  and  ruling 
personality  of  Scripture.  Therefore  the  four  Gospels 
should  have  the  chief  place  in  any  scheme  of  Bible  read¬ 
ing.  It  would  be  well  to  read  from  the  Gospels  daily. 
Next  in  order  of  importance  come  the  most  of  the  remain¬ 
ing  New  Testament  writings.  In  the  reading  of  the  Old 
Testament  the  religious  instinct  will  naturally  give  the 
preeminence  to  many  of  the  Psalms,  to  Job,  and  to  the 
mightiest  books  of  prophecy — Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah  and  others.  Large  portions  of  the  Pentateuch 
and  of  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  are  full  of  religious 
inspiration.  On  these  and  other  peculiarly  rich  portions 
of  Scripture  we  should  chiefly  feed.  But  while  we 
naturally  read  the  great  and  deep  portions  with  a  greater 
frequency  and  ardor,  we  should  not  utterly  neglect  those 
portions  that  have  less  to  say  to  the  men  of  to-day. 

Since  it  is  the  supreme  end  of  the  Bible  to  bring  men 
into  fellowship  with  God,  the  book  is  to  be  read  with 
prayer  and  with  the  sincere  desire  to  know  the  mind  of 
the  Spirit,  and,  knowing,  to  obey. 

(2)  The  Use  of  the  Bible  as  the  Source  of  Teaching 
in  the  Church. — The  universal  Christian  recognition  of 
the  Bible  as  the  supreme  book  of  revelation  is  immensely 
significant,  yet  obviously  the  mere  formal  recognition  of 
its  authority  is  no  guarantee  that  in  actual  practice  the 


HOW  TO  READ  THE  BIBLE 


888 


Bible  will  be  rightly  used  as  the  source  and  standard  of 
the  church’s  teaching.  The  wide  diversity  of  views  as  to 
“what  the  Bible  teaches”  is  a  sufficient  proof  of  this 
statement. 

Some  of  the  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  substance 
of  the  Bible’s  teachings  and  as  to  the  right  way  to  use 
the  Bible  in  Christian  instruction  are  due  to  dogmatic 
prepossessions.  Many  people  go  to  the  Bible,  not  to  learn 
what  it  teaches,  but  to  find  support  for  their  own  dogmas. 
A  famous  Latin  couplet,  some  centuries  old,  refers  to  the 
Bible  as  “the  book  in  which  each  man  seeks  and  finds 
his  own  dogmas.”  Only  a  radical  change  of  mind  can 
help  people  who  are  in  the  grip  of  dogmatic  prejudice. 
But  there  are  people  who  are  of  an  honest  and  teachable 
spirit  and  yet  miss  the  right  way  in  their  use  of  the  Bible. 
Certain  general  misconceptions  vitiate  their  method. 

(a)  The  Use  of  the  Bible  in  Theology. — The  organized 
church  has  never  been  wholly  without  something  in  the 
way  of  dogma  (a  platform,  or  consensus  as  to  first  prin¬ 
ciples).  For  a  long  time,  however,  the  early  church  had 
no  official  statement  of  its  creed,  only  a  free  general  con¬ 
sensus.  And  in  modern  times  some  Protestant  bodies 
have  sought  to  return  to  the  primitive  order  in  this  regard 
and  be  free  from  all  official  formulations  of  creed.  Yet 
all  are  agreed  in  this,  that  the  community  of  believers 
must  have  a  general  consensus  respecting  first  principles 
as  a  platform  or  basis  of  cooperation.  The  question 
then  arises  as  to  the  relation  of  the  Bible  to  the  church’s 
creed. 

Historically  the  creeds  of  Christendom  have  taken  shape 
under  the  influence  of  two  general  factors :  first,  the 
primitive  Christian  tradition,  which  we  find  embodied  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  secondly,  the  various  modifying 


384  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

forces  comprehended  by  the  term  “historical  evolution.’^ 
Now  the  forms  of  Christian  thought  are  under  the  inevi¬ 
table  law  of  change  and  development.  Moreover,  the 
conception  of  the  meaning  of  Christianity  should  be  en¬ 
larged,  enriched  and  clarified  in  the  course  of  history. 
And  yet  in  its  essential  substance  it  is  what  it  was  from 
the  beginning:  the  fellowship  with  God  through  Jesus 
Christ  and  service  in  his  kingdom.  For  this  reason 
Christianity  must  be  true  to  its  original  principles.  This 
means  that  the  church  must  be  securely  anchored  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  Christian  creed  must  be  faithfully 
Biblical.  It  is  not  bound  to  the  Biblical  forms  of  ex¬ 
pression,  but  only  to  the  substance  of  the  Biblical  truth. 
For  this  is  eternal.  There  are  many  ideas  in  the  Bible 
which  are  but  the  shell  of  the  truth ;  these  fall  away ;  but 
the  Christian  faith  cannot  let  go  anything  of  the  real 
revelation  of  God  that  is  given  through  the  Christ  of 
the  Gospels,  neither  can  it  introduce  elements  from  foreign 
sources  without  threatening  the  very  life  of  the  faith. 
In  its  innermost  essence  the  Christian  creed  must  remain 
the  confession  to  the  Lordship  of  the  Christ  of  the  Bible. 
And  it  is  a  significant  fact  that  no  branch  of  the  church 
has  ever  put  forth  a  dogma  without  claiming  that  it  was 
Biblical. 

Theology  is  not  the  same  thing  as  dogma,  although 
there  is  theology  in  dogma.  That  is  to  say,  theology 
helped  to  shape  the  dogma.  Theology  is  the  attempt  to 
give  a  reasoned  statement  of  the  faith;  as  such  it  is 
more  or  less  the  affair  of  individuals,  even  though  it  can¬ 
not  flourish  without  large  cooperation.  Dogma,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  a  positive  statement  of  the  basis  of  church 
fellowship;  as  such  it  is  the  affair  of  the  whole  com¬ 
munion.  All  conscious  members  of  the  communion  have 


HOW  TO  READ  THE  BIBLE 


385 


a  creed  (dogma),  but  only  thinking  Christians  have  any 
theology  to  speak  of. 

It  might  be  inferred  from  this,  that  it  would  be  best  to 
leave  theology  to  a  select  class.  What  use  (people  often 
ask)  has  the  ordinary  Christian  with  theology?  Now  it 
must  be  granted  that  the  church  does  not  need  a  vast  mul¬ 
titude  of  professional  theologians.  Yet  every  thinking 
Christian  should  be  and  is  something  of  a  theologian. 
And  it  is  of  immense  practical  consequence  that  the  “lay 
theology'’  should  be  sane  and  helpful.  For  the  great 
issues  of  Christian  thinking  are  always  determined  in  the 
end  by  the  experience  and  common  sense  of  the  laity. 
It  is  above  all  important  that  the  laity  should  read  the 
Bible  with  a  sure  touch  and  intuition  as  to  what  it  really 
means  and  teaches.  For  to  the  laity — in  the  homes,  Bible 
schools  and  so  forth — falls  the  larger  part  of  the  task  of 
Christian  instruction. 

In  this  connection  little  more  than  a  mere  reference  to 
principles  already  set  forth  can  be  offered.  The  Bible 
reader  must  bear  in  mind  that  what  “the  Bible  says”  (or 
seems  to  say)  in  a  given  passage  is  not  always  “what  the 
Bible  teaches.”  The  teaching  of  the  Bible  is  not  every¬ 
thing  that  is  in  the  Bible;  its  teaching  is  its  revelation  of 
God.  Since  Christ  is  the  center  and  sum  of  the  Biblical 
revelation,  everything  in  the  Bible  should  be  read  and 
judged  from  this  high  standpoint.  That  which  is  im¬ 
perfect  and  merely  preparatory  should  be  seen  and  judged 
in  its  actual  relations  to  the  whole  Biblical  movement. 
Jesus  Christ  himself  is  the  criterion  of  what  is  truly 
“scriptural.” 

(b)  The  Use  of  the  Bible  in  the  Church* s  Program  of 
Instruction. — Once  the  church’s  public  instruction  de¬ 
pended — ^aside  from  Christian  literature — upon  two 


386  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


means :  the  pulpit  and  catechetical  classes.  The  growth 
of  the  modern  Bible  school  and  its  ramifications  in  the 
religious  day  school  and  other  features  are  highly  sig¬ 
nificant.  We  are  now  in  a  new  era  of  religious  education. 
And  since  the  Bible  is  sure  to  be  the  great  source-book 
and  manual  of  religious  instruction  even  in  the  new  era, 
it  is  of  the  greatest  consequence  that  we  learn  how  to 
handle  it  aright. 

In  the  Protestant  churches  the  pulpit  was  once  the 
great  teaching  agency.  The  growth  of  the  modern  Sun¬ 
day  school,  together  with  other  influences,  has  tended  to 
minimize  the  teaching  function  of  the  pulpit.  In  some 
quarters  there  is  now  a  decided  movement  toward  “a 
teaching  ministry.”  It  is  particularly  important  that  the 
handling  of  the  Bible  in  the  pulpit  should  be  fitted  to  the 
needs  of  the  present  day. 

In  its  handling  of  the  Bible  the  pulpit  must  be  absolutely 
frank.  Not  that  it  is  necessary  to  “preach  criticism.” 
Indeed,  it  is,  strictly  speaking,  impossible  to  preach  criti¬ 
cism;  it  is  only  a  positive  message  that  can  be  preached. 
Criticism  belongs  to  the  school  and  the  study.  But  the 
preaching  should  at  least  assume  a  form  that  is  in  keeping 
with  the  results  of  the  scientific  study  of  the  Bible.  More¬ 
over,  the  people,  in  one  way  or  another,  should  be  made 
acquainted  with  the  true  state  of  inquiry  as  to  the  nature 
and  growth  of  the  Bible.  Especially  they  should  be  made 
to  see  that  faith  is  not  and  cannot  be  jeopardized  by  honest 
criticism.  On  such  matters  the  pulpit  should  not  be  silent. 
The  believing  church  should  be  absolutely  positive  in  her 
message,  but  her  very  certainty  should  make  her  fearless 
regarding  the  historical  study  of  the  Bible.  No  man  who 
is  wholly  given  to  the  proclamation  of  the  Biblical  mes- 


HOW  TO  READ  THE  BIBLE  387 

sage  will  find  anything  really  embarrassing  in  Biblical 
science. 

A  notorious  evil  in  the  handling  of  the  Bible  in  some 
pulpits  is  the  frequent  violation  of  the  sense  of  the  text. 
The  custom  of  “taking  a  text”  from  the  Bible  is  a  good 
one,  for  Christian  preaching  must  hold  fast  to  the  Chris¬ 
tian  sources.  But  it  is  far  better  to  preach  without  a 
text  than  to  take  one  and  then  pervert  it. 

In  the  present  day  there  is  a  crying  need  for  competent 
lay  instructors  in  the  field  of  religion.  The  teachers  in 
our  Bible  schools  must  learn,  above  everything  else,  how 
to  read  their  Bible  aright,  so  that  they  may  rightly  use  it 
in  their  instruction.  Assuming  that  the  necessary  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  Bible  has  been  acquired,  several  general  and 
a  multitude  of  particular  questions  of  method  will  arise. 
The  first  question  relates  to  the  question  of  the  selection 
of  material  for  study  and  illustration.  The  material  of 
the  Bible  cannot  be  used  indiscriminately.  Some  portions 
have  little  or  no  direct  interest  for  the  life  of  our  time; 
and  some  have  only  a  subordinate  place.  A  well-con¬ 
sidered  purpose  must  control  in  the  selection  of  material. 
The  teacher,  however,  should  avoid  becoming  too  in¬ 
dividual  in  his  point  of  view;  the  common  judgment  of 
Christian  teachers  will  help  to  enlarge  his  outlook.  Then 
comes  the  problem  of  what  to  do  with  certain  so-called 
“Bible  difficulties.”  Many  teachers  are  embarrassed  by 
the  pupils’  questions  as  to  the  literalness  of  such  stories 
as  those  of  the  creation  of  woman,  of  the  Garden  of  Eden, 
of  the  immense  age  of  the  patriarchs,  of  the  Flood,  of  the 
fish  that  swallowed  Jonah,  and  the  like.  On  such  matters 
two  simple  remarks  must  suffice.  In  the  first  place, 
fearless  honesty  must  be  practised;  in  the  long  run  this 
is  the  surer  and  safer  way.  In  the  second  place,  the 


888  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 


‘eacher,  who  is  aglow  with  the  certainty  that  God  is 
revealed  in  the  Bible,  will  find  a  way  to  make  the  human 
aspects  of  the  Bible  to  be  as  little  embarrassing  to  his 
pupils  as  they  are  to  himself.  In  the  light  of  God  him¬ 
self  these  difficulties  become  as  nothing. 


Appendix 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  AND  SUGGESTIONS  FOR 

FURTHER  STUDY 

THE  TEXT 

The  Bible  student  should  first  of  all  provide  himself 
with  the  best  texts  and  versions.  Besides  the  King  James 
Version  he  should  have  the  Revised  Version,  especially 
the  American  Standard  Bible  (Thomas  Nelson  and  Sons, 
1901).  To  these  should  be  added  one  or  more  of  the 
‘‘modern  speech”  versions  of  the  New  Testament.  Of 
these,  Moffatt’s  enjoys  the  highest  repute;  next  to  this, 
Weymouth’s.  Very  recently  Ballantine  and  Goodspeed 
have  each  put  forth  a  translation. 

For  the  intelligent  reading  of  the  Bible  one  of  the  best 
of  helps  is  Moulton’s  Modern  Reader's  Bible,  issued  both 
in  a  single  volume  and  in  parts.  In  this  edition  the  text 
is  so  printed  as  to  bring  out  the  varieties  of  literary  form. 

If  one  is  able  to  read  the  Bible  in  the  original  tongues, 
critical  texts  should  be  procured:  for  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  Kittel’s;  for  the  New,  Westcott  and  Hort’s  or 
Nestle’s.  The  latter  is  issued  in  a  convenient  and  inex¬ 
pensive  form  by  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society. 
It  is  further  important  that  one  should  have  a  good  edition 
of  the  Apocrypha,  especially  the  Old  Testament  Apocry¬ 
pha.  The  Clarendon  Press,  Oxford,  puts  out  an  excellent 
edition  of  the  text  in  English,  and  R.  H.  Charles  has 

S89 


890 


APPENDIX 


edited  the  Apocrypha  and  Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  almost  ideal  fashion  with  introduction  and 
notes  (2  large  volumes). 

BIBLE  DICTIONARIES 

Access  to  a  modern  Bible  Dictionary  is  indispensable. 
The  two  best  of  those  confined  within  the  limits  of  a  single 
volume  are  The  Standard  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  edited 
by  Jacobus  (Funk  and  Wagnalls,  New  York),  and  A  One- 
Volume  Bible  Dictionary,  edited  by  Hastings  (Edinburgh 
and  New  York).  Of  still  greater  value  are  the  ampler 
works,  especially  Hastings’  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  5 
volumes  (including  the  Extra  Volume).  In  addition  to 
these,  the  Encyclopcedia  Biblica,  edited  by  Cheyne,  and 
the  International  Bible  Encyclopcedia  (Chicago),  are  of 
real  value. 

Dr.  Hastings  edited  also  a  Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the 
Gospels  and  a  Dictionary  of  the  Apostolic  Age,  each  in  2 
large  volumes.  These  are  no  less  admirable  than  the  main 
Dictionary.  Mention  should  be  made  of  the  valuable 
Jewish  Encyclopcedia  and  to  the  splendid  Biblical  articles 
in  the  Encyclopcedia  Britannica. 

GENERAL  INTRODUCTORY  GUIDES  TO  BIBLE  STUDY 

Of  such  there  are  many ;  but  of  the  large  number,  some 
are  very  unsystematic,  some  are  thoroughly  antiquated, 
and  some  are  too  dogmatic.  A  few  really  helpful  ones 
may  be  mentioned — and  the  list  could  be  very  greatly 
extended.  H.  L.  Willett,  Our  Bible,  Chicago,  1917; 
George  Hodges,  How  to  know  the  Bible,  Indianapolis, 
1918;  H.  B.  Hunting,  The  Story  of  our  Bible,  1915;  J. 
H.  Penniman,  A  Book  about  the  English  Bible,  New 


APPENDIX 


391 


York,  1919;  Smyth,  a  series  of  little  volumes,  The  Bible 
in  the  Making;  How  we  got  our  Bible;  The  Old  Docu¬ 
ments  and  the  New  Bible;  How  God  inspired  the  Bible; 
Sunderland,  The  Origin  and  Character  of  the  Bible; 
Peake,  The  Bible:  its  Origin,  its  Significance,  and  its  Abid¬ 
ing  Worth;  also  his  briefer  work.  The  Nature  of  Scripture, 
1922;  Dods,  The  Bible,  its  Origin  and  Nature;  Briggs, 
A  General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture. — 
The  books  named  represent  various  degrees  of  difficulty. 
That  by  Hunting  is  designed  for  those  just  entering  upon 
serious  study.  Then  the  books  by  Willett,  Hodges,  Penni- 
man  and  Smyth  are  designed  for  popular  use.  For  those 
who  desire  to  inquire  into  the  deeper  aspects  of  the  Bible 
question,  the  books  by  Peake  are  among  the  best.  For 
those  interested  in  the  bearing  of  Biblical  criticism  upon 
the  fundamental  question  of  faith  the  following  books 
may  be  further  recommended:  G.  A.  Smith,  Modern 
Criticism  and  the  Preaching  of  the  Old  Testament; 
Eiselen,  The  Christian  View  of  the  Old  Testament ;  Bade, 
The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  To-day;  W.  N.  Clarke, 
Sixty  Years  With  the  Bible.  As  a  guide  to  the  principles 
of  interpretation :  Gilbert,  A  Short  History  of  Interpreter- 
tion. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Introductions  to  the  Old  Testament  by  Driver,  Cornill, 
Moore,  McFadyen,  Gray,  Fowler,  and  Sellin  (1923). 

Introductions  to  the  New  Testament  by  Zahn,  Jiilicher, 
Moffatt,  and  Bacon,  and  Story  of  the  New  Testament  by 
Goodspeed. 

Also  for  the  Old  Testament,  W.  R.  Smith’s  Old  Testor 
ment  in  the  Jewish  Church  is  very  valuable. 


892 


APPENDIX 


BIBLICAL  HISTORY  AND  ARCHEOLOGY 

The  general  text-books  on  Old  Testament  History  by 
H.  P.  Smith,  Wade,  and  Peritz  are  excellent.  The  His¬ 
torical  Bible  Series  by  Kent  is  very  useful.  For  the  New 
Testament  the  New  Testament  History  by  Rail  will  afford 
an  excellent  introduction.  McGiffert’s  Christianity  in  the 
Apostolic  Age  is  a.  standard  work.  As  an  introduction  to 
Biblical  archaeology  perhaps  the  most  convenient  book  is 
Barton,  Archceology  and  the  Bible.  See  also  Price,  Monu¬ 
ments  and  the  Old  Testament;  Jeremias,  The  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  in  the  Light  of  the  Ancient  East;  Ball,  Light  from 
the  East;  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels  to  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.  For  the  bearing  of  the  discoveries  of  papyri  upon 
the  knowledge  of  the  New  Testament,  consult  Deissmann, 
Light  from  the  Ancient  East,  rewritten  edition  1923,  and 
Cobern,  The  New  Archceological  Discoveries. 

BIBLICAL  GEOGRAPHY 

The  most  convenient  first  introduction  to  the  study  of 
Biblical  geography  is  afforded  by  Kent,  Biblical  History 
and  Geography.  For  a  fuller  study  one  must  go  to  G.  A. 
Smith’s  great  books.  Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy 
Land,  and  Jerusalem.  An  admirable  little  book  in  this 
field  is  Laura  H.  Wild’s  Geographic  Influences  in  Old 
T estament  Masterpieces. 

THE  RELIGION  AND  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  BIBLE 

From  the  wealth  of  books  in  this  field  only  a  few  will 
be  named,  for  these  will  afford  guidance  for  further  re¬ 
search.  Robinson,  The  Religious  Ideas  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment;  Schultz,  Old  Testament  Theology;  Davidson,  Old 


APPENDIX 


893 


Testament  Theology,  and  Old  Testament  Prophecy;  Cor- 
nill,  The  Prophets  of  Israel;  Knudson,  Beacon  Lights  of 
Prophecy,  and  The  Religious  Teaching  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament;  Stevens,  The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament ; 
Beyschlag,  New  Testament  Theology;  Wendt,  The  Teach¬ 
ing  of  Jesus.  There  are  many  other  works  on  these 
themes,  especially  on  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Also  Paul 
and  John  are  amply  treated  in  many  books. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  ENGLISH  BIBLE 

Price,  Ancestry  of  Our  English  Bible;  Westcott,  His¬ 
tory  of  the  English  Bible,  3d  edition  by  W.  A.  Wright, 
1905. 

THE  BIBLE  AS  LITERATURE 

Gardiner,  The  Bible  as  Literature,  1912;  R.  G.  Moul¬ 
ton,  The  Literary  Study  of  the  Bible,  1895 ;  Wood  and 
Grant,  The  Bible  as  Literature,  1914;  Eckman,  The 
Literary  Primacy  of  the  Bible;  Works,  The  Bible  in  Eng¬ 
lish  Literature;  a  book  by  Burgess  and  one  by  Words¬ 
worth  on  Shakespeare’s  use  of  the  Bible.  Genung,  A 
Guide  to  the  Literature  of  the  Bible;  L.  H.  Wild,  A 
Literary  Guide  to  the  Bible;  Gordon,  The  Poetry  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

THE  BIBLE  AND  CIVILIZATION 

Ernst  von  Dobschiitz,  The  Influence  of  the  Bible  on 
Civilization ;  D.  O.  Mears,  The  Book  of  Books;  William 
Canton,  The  Bible  and  the  Anglo-Saxon  People. 

COMMENTARIES 

Commentaries  of  the  older  type  were  generally  too 
exclusively  grammatical  and  philological,  too  atomistic. 


394 


APPENDIX 


Some  of  them,  however,  were  dogmatic  and  sectarian  in 
spirit  and  tendency.  The  typical  modern  commentary  is 
not  less  thorough  in  respect  to  grammatical  details,  but  it 
is  incomparably  more  historical,  seeking  to  discover  and 
show  the  historical  background  and  occasion  of  writing 
and  to  exhibit  its  standpoint  and  reproduce  its  argument. 
Among  the  best  commentaries  are  the  following : 

A  Commentary  on  the  Bible,  ed.  by  A.  S.  Peake  (one 
volume),  The  Oxford  Bible  for  Schools,  The  Cambridge 
Bible  for  Schools  and  Colleges,  The  New  Century  Bible 
(Macmillan),  The  Temple  Bible,  The  International  Criti- 
cal  Commentary,  The  Westminster  Commentary, 

Bible  for pchools  and  CMleges,  The  New  Century  jBible, 
The  Bime  for  Home /and  School,  '^he  T  emplej  Bible , 
The  Infernational  Critical  Commentary,  The  Westminster 
Commentary. 

The  last  two  are  very  exhaustive  in  their  treatment. 
For  the  average  Bible  student  the  other  (much  briefer) 
works  will  be  found  more  available. 


r* 


4 


V  1 


f  '\  y '■<’',  f.  X,- i  •  \  -^c 

'-.  '  •  V  -  'v  VV'vi^V  ■' 


:  K'fi- 


■  v  ■■■'/;  i-r,-,..i-?>^ ^  'S';: 


'!r0< 


s.,  1  ■ 


'r#X.- 

'  '  ’1  ‘  j'rX'  ,  ^'''- '■’J 


s  ■■  :i:'iW0M 

i'MMlm 


<:•,'■  ,  -j. 

.  r  »  ^  »  1-  j 

V  ',  _  .■  * 

■f  ■'-  ':.-  •‘■'  - 


ai  • 


I 


A.. 


*1 

< 


f: 


?. 


!( 


1 1' 


.  .i  !■ 


v' 

!  V  j 


1 


A 


Date  Due 


1  P  ’#:? 

iV  a  ^ 

■t  ■  ■  ,  . 

•■’'•  'iC,! 

S^T-  «•  ••*  '.  5  t.  '  •  j 

nl. 

w  « ■ 

i  JA  1 ) • X 

‘  i  ■ 

V 

■  ai» 

C .  B  - 

' 

y,«r!i! 

T  - 

i-  2^'i 

ta 

'\.  'K: 

■iC 

Hr  1  9  ’4S 

i 

1  O 
iip  X 

1 

; 


